increasing efficiency of forensic dna casework using lean six

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Increasing Efficiency of Forensic DNA Casework

Using Lean Six Sigma Tools Author: Melinda Richard, MT (ASCP), Timothy D.

Kupferschmid, MBA, MFS Document No.: 235190

Date Received: July 2011 Award Number: 2008-DN-BX-K188 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally-funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

NIJ Forensic DNA Efficiency Improvement Grant Final Report June 2011

1

Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory

Increasing Efficiency of Forensic DNA Casework

Using Lean Six Sigma Tools

Forensic DNA Unit Efficiency Improvement Grant

Final Report

June 2011

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.


2

Increasing Efficiency of Forensic DNA Casework

Using Lean Six Sigma Tools

Author: Melinda Richard, MT(ASCP), Louisiana State Police; Timothy D. Kupferschmid, MBA, MFS, Sorenson Forensics

Abstract

It has been documented that the number of DNA requests received in public crime laboratories has

increased such that backlogs exist and turn-around-times are extended.1 Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory

(LSPCL) saw a 22% increase from 2006 to 2007 and a 48% increase from 2008 to 2009 in the number of DNA

requests submitted. The completion rate was not increasing at a rate to compensate for the increased submittals

and eliminate the backlog of requests that had accumulated.

In October 2008, LSPCL was awarded an NIJ efficiency improvement grant. LSPCL accepted the award in

the amount of $600,000, consisting of a 25% state fund match. The funds were used to hire external consultants to

conduct two Lean Six Sigma (LSS) projects, to purchase additional equipment to increase throughput, to validate

robotics, and to add tools that facilitate a paperless environment in order to increase efficiency and allow trained

DNA analysts to conduct scientific analysis as expeditiously as possible.

LSPCL applied a multi-faceted approach to the problem, using the NIJ‟s Forensic DNA Efficiency

Improvement Grant as a cornerstone to changes that have led to a 134% completion rate in the number of DNA

requests completed in 2010. All grant goals and objectives were met, but more importantly, the process has been

improved and the culture has been changed such that the LSPCL Forensic DNA Unit has substantially increased its

operational efficiency.

There were additional initiatives, funded by other grants or state funding, that affected had a positive impact

on the results (outsourcing of over 1000 forensic cases, additional equipment, hiring and external training of

additional technicians and analysts); however, the changes made as a result of the efficiency grant funding,

primarily the LSS projects, changed the culture and has provided a platform to make the equipment, personnel and

available resources more efficient. LSPCL‟s success has led to LSS projects throughout the state Department of

Public Safety Services. While DNA is an ever-changing industry, foundational principles were developed and tools

were provided to allow the LSPCL to operate more efficiently and effectively. The agencies and the public are

better served today because of this grant project.


kpurcell

Typewritten Text

Award #: 2008-DN-BX-K188


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Problem Synopsis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 4

1.2 Grant Purpose ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7

1.3 Research Design ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..… 7

1.4 Project Goals …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11

1.5 Specific Projects and Purchases ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………12

1.5.1 Improved DNA analysis capacity and productivity

1.5.2 Leverage Technology

1.5.3 Sustain with Clerical Time Savers

1.6 Findings ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

1.7 Additional Progress Achieved ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17

1.8 Summary Statement ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20

SECTION 2: TECHNICAL REPORT

2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21

2.2 Methods ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 26

2.3 Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41

2.4 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………122

2.5 References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….124

2.6 Dissemination of Research Findings …………………………………………………………………………………………………..124



4

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 PROBLEM SYNOPSIS

While Louisiana‟s violent crime rates, as well as the nation‟s, show decreases over the last several years, they still

are substantially higher than the national rates. Louisiana‟s violent crime rates are approximately 1.5 times that of

the nation and murder rates are more than twice the national rates over several years.2 See Table 1 & Figure 1.

Table 1: Crime Rates 2006-2009

Crime Rate per 100,000 population

Year National

Violent

Crime Rate/ 10

Louisiana

Violent Crime

Rate/ 10

National

Murder

Rate

Louisiana

Murder

Rate

National

Forcible

Rape Rate

Louisiana

Forcible

Rape Rate

2006 473.6 717.7 5.7 13.1 31.0 37.0

2007 466.9 737.3 5.6 14.7 30.0 33.2

2008 457.5 664.4 5.4 12.2 29.7 28.1

2009 429.4 620.0 5.0 11.8 28.7 30.3

Figure 1: National vs Louisiana Crime Rates 2006-2008

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

Violent Crime

Rate/10

Murder Forcible Rape

Violent Crime

Rate/10


Violent Crime

Rate/10


2006 2007 2008

National

Louisiana

Annual Crime Rates: National vs Louisiana 2

Cri

me

Rat

e /

10

0K

po

pu

lati

on



5

At a March 2010 “Symposium on Re-Entry” in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, speakers explained that the United States

has the highest incarceration per capita rate in the world, and Louisiana has the highest rate in the nation.

According to Louisiana‟s Department of Corrections, any given day there are 40,000 offenders in Louisiana‟s

prisons and jails. Each year 15,000 offenders are returned to society. About half will return to prison within a year.

Recidivism studies have shown that 67% of the released offenders will have a repeat offense within three years.3

With 40.4% of Louisiana offenders having committed violent crimes4 and a recidivism rate in Louisiana of 31.8%

(2008)5, the need for rapid investigation and resolution to forensic cases is apparent.

DNA analysis has proven to be an important crime solving tool for investigators and prosecutors. As the sensitivity

of DNA technology continues to increase, laboratories are able to isolate DNA profiles from very small sample

sizes. “Touch” DNA can be obtained from inanimate objects touched by the perpetrator. Coupled with the ever-

increasing power of the national CODIS database to produce a CODIS “hit” or investigative lead, the likelihood of

DNA forensic analysis yielding assistance to an investigation is growing. However, in order for DNA to provide

assistance to investigations, DNA analysis of the evidence in the forensic case must be completed.

The number of DNA requests submitted to crime labs has increased over the past years1, with Louisiana‟s State

Police Crime Lab (LSPCL) showing the same trend.

Figure 2: DNA requests received annually

The rate at which crime labs have worked DNA cases has not kept pace with the submissions, thereby creating

backlogs. Prior to the efficiency improvement project, LSPCL experienced the same issue. (Figure 3)



6

Figure 3: DNA requests received vs completed annually by LSPCL

Creating and maintaining a system that increases the rate at which cases are completed, to a level that not only

keeps pace with submissions, but allows the lab to “catch up” on the backlogged cases has been a difficult

challenge.

The time that a case spends waiting to be worked plus the time for analysis and completion of a case is the “turn-

around-time”(TAT) of the request. With TAT‟s that exceeded a calendar year, the need for action was clear.

Figure 4: LSPCL TAT (days) by year

At one point in 2007, the backlog at Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory (LSPCL) was 1700 DNA requests. In

2008, at the time of grant application, it was projected, based on the trend, that the DNA backlog would double

within 2 years if action was not taken. The cycle could only be broken by attacking the efficiency of the forensic

DNA caseworking laboratory.

Figure 5: LSPCL Annual Backlog

0

500

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009

Annual TAT (days)

Day

s



7

1.2 GRANT PURPOSE

The purpose of the NIJ‟s Forensic DNA Efficiency Improvement grant was to fund innovative and creative solutions

to this nation-wide problem. The grant required a 25% match of federal funds by the state government budget. In

October 2008, LSPCL was awarded an NIJ Forensic DNA Efficiency Improvement Grant of $600,000. With

$450,000 supplied by the federal grant, $150,000 was funded by state funds. LSPCL used the grant as

a cornerstone to make cultural and operational changes.

Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory engaged in the grant to accomplish goals aimed at eliminating the backlog

of DNA forensic casework, reducing the turn-around-time of the cases worked, increasing the productivity of their

DNA forensic laboratory, and increasing the number of CODIS hits; thereby providing an increased level of

assistance to ongoing criminal investigations and structuring the DNA forensic laboratory process to handle future

casework in a timely manner, providing real-time support to investigations.

As the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) provides tools to public forensic DNA laboratories, this study serves as a

template for other laboratories to solve their productivity challenges.

1.3 RESEARCH DESIGN

The LSPCL had a multi-pronged approach to the problem of the backlog, extended turn-around-times, and low

productivity. The overall goal was to create an efficient business-like structure to the scientific work and focus the

scientists on the technical laboratory work of DNA analysis, where the services rendered would then be timely and

accurate, meeting the needs of the agencies served. The strategy involved three levels of improvement:

I. Develop more effective communication between agencies and LSPCL

II. Outsource as much work as possible to temporarily create more staff resources

III. Improve the efficiency of the DNA forensic process



8

The major workpoints for each level are listed below:

The three phases occurred over 3 years, beginning in September 2008 and involved projects funded by a variety of

sources: Louisiana state funding, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) DNA Backlog Reduction and Capacity grant

funding, and the NIJ DNA Forensic Efficiency Improvement Grant. The overall success was the product of all the

activities, making attributing statistical effect a challenge. However, the activities supported by the NIJ Efficiency

Improvement grant occurred at the end of the timeline, so the metrics readily correspond to those timepoints.

The activities of the Efficiency Improvement Grant will be addressed in this report, with comments regarding the

Level 1 and Level 2 additional efforts addressed in Section 1.7 Additional Progress Achieved.

LEVEL 1

COMMUNICATION

Cancel unneeded cases

Prioritize backlogged cases

Ensure complete submissions

Equip agencies for easier

future submissions

LEVEL 2

OUTSOURCE

Casework

Training of new DNA analysts

Transfer screening to newly

created Forensic Technician

positions

LEVEL 3

IMPROVE DNA FORENSIC

ANALYSIS WORKFLOW

Improve analysis capacity and

productivity

Leverage technology

Sustain with clerical time savers



9

LEVEL 3: IMPROVE DNA FORENSIC ANALYSIS WORKFLOW

1. Improve analysis capacity and productivity

As Level 3 was to improve DNA Forensic analysis workflow, the focus was to improve capacity and productivity.

Applying business management principles to the laboratory setting was the first step. After researching success of

the Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodology by other laboratories within the same industry (Sorenson Forensics‟ LSS

implementation to the paternity lab work flow and South Carolina‟s Law Enforcement (SLED) Crime Lab‟s LSS

implementation to address their DNA cycle time), the decision was made to address the workflow through the LSS

business model. Consultants that specialize in these efficiency methods were hired for both the DNA analysis

process and the purchasing process. Once the bottlenecks were identified, the “choke” points were addressed in a

systematic fashion. Schedules were developed to dictate all activities of all persons, with regular accountability

meetings. Data was made visual for all to see areas that needed attention. Equipment was purchased to increase

capacity or to enable a faster work flow either through decreased waiting time or decreased analysis time. Work

spaces were rearranged to reduce the motion and transportation required during the steps of DNA casework

analysis. The culture of the organization was changed.

2. Leverage Technology

As the Lean Six Sigma projects progressed, leveraging available technologies became essential. This included

purchasing equipment to maximize robotic solutions, to facilitate barcoding of sample tubes wherever possible, and

to provide printers where they were needed.

3. Sustain with Clerical Time Savers

The last step was to sustain the efficiency obtained by reducing time spent on clerical tasks. Historically, at LSPCL,

it was the responsibility of the DNA analysts and supervisors to complete administrative tasks, such as purchasing

supplies, inventory management, grant administration, communicating with vendors, and assuring that budgets

LEVEL 3

IMPROVE DNA FORENSIC ANALYSIS WORKFLOW

Improve analysis capacity and productivity

Leverage technology

Sustain with clerical time savers



10

were managed such that supplies were available when needed. This meant the DNA analysts spent a great deal of

time on non-laboratory functions. A Business Unit was formed, within the LSPCL, to be a central hub for all of the

previously mentioned administrative activities. One of the most time consuming tasks was the purchasing of DNA

supplies. To streamline this, such that current clerical staff could absorb this function, a second LSS project was

completed. This shifted responsibility for obtaining quotes, negotiating pricing, managing vendors, and tracking

delivery and payment, from the DNA analysts and supervisors, to the newly formed Business Unit. The LSS project

reduced the staff time spent on purchasing functions, streamlined the process, and reduced the cycle time needed

to obtain supplies.

To reduce storage space needed for records and to reduce clerical time and effort spent responding to requests for

documentation, an imaging project was conducted to create electronic copies of DNA documents. Historical data

was scanned by an external vendor; however, the hardware and software was purchased to provide a system going

forward to image, index, and store documents electronically. The documents are stored on an internal network and

can be accessed from any workstation (as defined). This created more laboratory time and increased the ability of

the DNA staff to focus strictly on casework.

In summary, the initiatives included implementation of Lean Six Sigma principles; the purchase of equipment and

tools needed to eliminate bottlenecks, streamline processes, and increase capacity; and an organizational structure

that provides a concentrated focus of DNA staff on scientific tasks and casework related duties.



11

1.4 PROJECT GOALS

Grant goals were as follows:

Reduce DNA case turn-around-time by 50%

Double productivity

Reduce DNA case backlog by 50%

Increase the number of CODIS hits

Departmental Agency Goals were as follows:

Eliminate the backlog

Complete 100% of the cases submitted each year

Decrease DNA forensic case turn-around-time to 60 days

Increase the number of CODIS hits obtained

Purchasing LSS process goals were as follows:

Decrease the average DNA purchasing process cycle time

Change the mix of purchase types

Decrease staff time spent performing purchasing tasks



12

1.5 SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND PURCHASES

1.5.1 Improve DNA Forensic analysis capacity and productivity

1.5.1.1 LSS Consultant- Forensic Analysis

A Request for Proposal competitive bid was conducted and Sorenson Forensics was awarded a professional

services contract to conduct a project to process map the current forensic DNA process from receipt of evidence to

analysis and reporting, provide measurable data to evaluate current productivity, identify “bottlenecks”, make

recommendations and create a plan and assist in the implementation of the improvements adopted by the LSPCL.

The vendor selected proposed a Lean Six Sigma method of accomplishing these goals. While some equipment was

purchased, the primary focus of this project was consistent procedures, tight scheduling of tasks and the use of the

resources without batching or waiting. Moreover, the project focused on modification of the culture of the work

environment and the way day-to-day activities were conducted.

1.5.1.2 Equipment to increase Capacity

As productivity increased through the LSS project, the number of samples being analyzed in a given day increased.

The “bottlenecks” moved and soon the extraction step became the new “choke point.” Two EZ1 Advanced XL

extraction robots, three thermocyclers, and four thermomixers were added to increase capacity and decrease

wait times. A 3130 genetic analyzer (4 capillary) was replaced with a 3130XL (16 capillary) to increase analysis

capacity As capacity increased, the ability to add additional services, such as analysis of bone samples, was

added. Previously the state lab for missing persons was outsourcing their casework, at an expense to the state. By

purchasing bone extraction equipment, a bone analysis procedure was added as a new service. The state‟s

missing persons samples can now be transferred locally and analyzed at no cost to the state‟s “sister” lab.

With more evidence moving through the lab in a given day, a need arose to have a location to dry evidence until

processing, without taking up the space of a screening lab. Two evidence drying cabinets were purchased to

facilitate this.



13

1.5.1.3 Dashboard Development

One of the critical phases of the LSS process is the Control phase. This is the last phase whereby improvements

are sustained through the use of proactive management. Daily the productivity and pace of operations are

measured, discussed and resources adjusted to keep the operational workflow steady. The data was being

manually tallied and graphed and printed daily. While these were critical charts to be reviewed, it consumed

training and report development. Large monitors were mounted in the production meeting area to visually display

performance metric results, which were being imported and refreshed daily, electronically.

1.5.1.4 Validation Services

In order to keep the DNA analysts analyzing cases, validation services were outsourced for the quantitation and

amplification set-up protocols for the Qiagility robots. Additionally, to expedite the use of the Prepfiler extraction

protocol for the extraction of buccal swabs and non-FTA blood card samples, the validation was outsourced. These

were sole source purchases.


One of the LSS project improvements was to reduce the movement around the laboratory during steps and

between steps to eliminate “motion” and “transportation” waste. Barcode scanners, a datamax barcode printer,

and desktop printers for CODIS were purchased for this purpose. Additional equipment was purchased, as

needed, using other available funding through the state and other grants.

Already addressed above, was the implementation of more robotic solutions, walk away work stations, and

electronic data gathering and manipulation. Imaging technology is addressed in 1.5.3 Sustain with Clerical Time

Savers.


1.5.3.1 Formation of the Business Unit

Reorganization of the Crime Lab structure formed a Business Unit to assume the responsibilities of most

administrative tasks. This allowed the DNA Analysts and Supervisors to focus strictly on forensic casework and

technical operations. Staffing was with current staff who were already performing many of the functions already.



14

1.5.3.2 LSS Consultant- Purchasing of DNA Supplies

A professional service contract was engaged to conduct a second LSS project to increase the efficiency of the DNA

supply and services procurement process. This project focus was to provide the DNA staff with the tools they

needed to perform their duties without delay and with as little involvement in procurement as possible. With the

assistance of the LSS Consultant, steps in the process were addressed to create an easier process and reduce the

time from the time the analyst determined that a supply was needed to the product delivery. The net goal was to

remove the scientists from engaging in purchasing tasks as much as possible.

1.5.3.3 Scanning Services & Software

The last professional service involved the imaging of 310,625 historical documents to create electronic records.

The removal of shelves of binders freed up 600 feet of shelving space and 8 file cabinets to be used for additional

DNA work space. More importantly it provides rapid availability of the records scanned. The images were scanned,

indexed using Kofax and Content Manager software,(purchased with Efficiency Improvement Grant funds) and

then uploaded to the network server, where staff can access the records as needed from their workstation. In

addition to being scanned, all records were OCR processed to allow the “find” feature. Records scanned included

the following:

Quality control records for cases that had been outsourced to vendor labs using previous grant funds

Analysts training records

Instrument maintenance & reagent logs

Validation studies

DNA extraction, quantitation, and amplification worksheets

CODIS data review documents

CODIS sample collection logs and documents- accessed during the hit confirmation process when needed

In addition to contracting a vendor to scan the current records, a high speed scanner was purchased to facilitate

the staff‟s continued efforts in generating electronic copies of records, as opposed to storing additional binders or

file cabinets of paper. The high speed scanner allows all incoming or newly-created documents to be scanned,



15

indexed and filed electronically by clerical staff. The technical staff can then reference and provide the necessary

documents rapidly and without leaving their workstation, thereby decreasing time needed for this administrative

task.

1.5.3.4 Qualtrax Compare Module

Qualtrax Compare software was purchased as an enhancement to the Qualtrax software purchased with prior

grant funds. This module allows for documents to be compared electronically with revisions flagged for the

reviewer. This decreases the administrative time needed in comparing, reviewing and approving revised

procedures, worksheets and policies. Because the DNA Technical Leader is primarily responsible for this function,

it creates more time for casework related functions.

1.5.3.5 On-site Store Equipment

While barcode software, computer, and barcode scanners were supplied by the lab consumable vendor, shelving

was purchased to facilitate the creation of an on-site store or warehouse for DNA supplies. The vendor performs

the management of the store and the inventory tracking and refilling, with oversight by the Business Unit.



16

1.6 FINDINGS

All Grant goals were met. (Note: Goal figures were initially established based on statistics at the time of the grant

application.)

Table 2: Grant goals

GOAL Unit of Measure TARGET MARCH 2011

Reduce case turn-around time by 50% Days 129 59

Double Productivity Requests completed/month 100 175

Decrease Backlog by 50% Requests 850 152

Increase # of CODIS Hits Hits for last 12 months >314 748

Agency goals were advanced as well, accomplishing 3 of the 4 goals stated:

Table 3: Agency goals

GOAL Unit of Measure TARGET MARCH 2011

Eliminate the Backlog case requests 0 152*

Complete 100% of the cases

submitted annually

% 100 134.5%

Decrease TAT to 60 days Days 60 59

Increase # of CODIS Hits ^ # hits 580

FY0809

694

FY0910

*While the backlog is not eliminated completely, LSPCL is internally changing the definition of a

“backlogged” case. Historically, LSPCL has considered any request that was received in the laboratory,

but not yet reported as a “backlogged” case. Now that the workflow is so much more efficient, LSPCL is

evolving to a new definition of backlog based on the new increased capacity. Current backlog is 152

requests, with only 8 requests that were received prior to January 2011 (>90 days). If current capacity is

160 requests per month, then the 152 requests are not truly backlog.

^ Measured by fiscal year (from July 1 to June 30)



17

All Purchasing LSS process goals were met:

Table 4: DNA Purchasing LSS goals

PURCHASING GOALS Unit of

Measure

BEFORE TARGET MARCH 2011

Decrease Purchase Cycle Time work days 40 10 7

Change the mix of purchase

types in order of ease of

processing

(Onsite store/ Lacarte/ Blanket

Order/ Purchase Order)

purchases 0 / 75 / 1 / 24 50 / 35 / 10 / 5 73 / 24 / 2 / 1

Decrease staff time spent

performing purchasing tasks

Hours/

week

DNA = 21.75 DNA = 5 DNA = 6.93

Crime Lab = 137.80 Crime Lab = 35 Crime Lab = 58.05

1.7 ADDITIONAL PROGRESS ACHIEVED (not funded by the Efficiency Improvement Grant)

Described earlier as Level 1 and Level 2 initiatives, there were additional activities that occurred during the grant

period, that were not funded or within the scope of the Efficiency Improvement Grant, but that contributed to

the achievement of the grant goals.

Because they contributed to the overall success of the performance metrics, it is important to mention them. It is

difficult to separate the statistical benefit of these efforts from those of the grant projects, as they were all occurring

simultaneously. They are discussed below, along with progress achieved in these initiatives.

LEVEL 1

COMMUNICATION

Cancel unneeded cases

Prioritize backlogged cases

Ensure complete submissions

Equip agencies for easier

future submissions

LEVEL 2

OUTSOURCE

Casework

Training of new DNA analysts

Transfer screening to Techs



18

Communication

LSPCL increased communication with the submitting agencies and judicial entities that submit evidence and are the

customers of the reports that are released, including district attorneys and investigators. Customer meetings were

conducted with agencies to review the cases in the backlog (through a list generated from the Lab Information

Management System, Justice Trax). Each agency was asked to review the case list and indicate whether the case

had been solved, closed, or otherwise no longer needed DNA analysis. Cumulatively, hundreds of DNA cases

were cancelled from January 2009 to March 2011, as a result of this review project. Today when an agency

submits a case for DNA analysis, the case submittal is reviewed at the time of submission. The DNA management

team is notified and immediately provides consultation with the submitting agent. This eliminates the need for

future communication and allows cases to be assigned without delay. Unable to easily measure the benefit, it is

estimated that previously 10-20% of the time spent on a DNA case, by a DNA analyst, could be attributed to

communication activities simply to ready a case for analysis.

A new DNA submittal form was created for agencies to use to prioritize their most probative evidence. This

supplemental DNA form provides specific DNA information, which had previously been obtained through countless

phone calls and email reminders. Through the use of the new form, agencies were asked to prioritize and limit

evidence submitted to 5 items for initial testing. Additional information blanks were provided such that investigators

could indicate provide notes as to the origin of the samples for determining CODIS eligibility.

Outsource Outsourced DNA Cases Included in the backlog numbers were 1000 forensic DNA cases that were outsourced using grant and state

funding. The 2004, 2005, and 2006 Backlog DNA grants, as well as the 2007 Backlog Capacity grant, funded much

of the outsourcing of forensic DNA cases. In addition, state funding supported outsourcing in 2008, 2009, and

2010. The Efficiency Improvement grant funds were not used for outsourcing. However, while the outsource

analysis reduced the analysis backlog, it did create a new backlog of cases to be technically and administratively

reviewed. One project, or “kaizen event,” of the LSS project was to “burn down the backlog of review” before a

process improvements could be made. The backlog statistics include the cases that were outsourced because they

were considered backlog until reported. The backlog statistics reported to the NIJ and to Department of Public

Safety Performance Monitoring included all cases received by the Crime Lab, but not yet reported.



19

Outsourced DNA Training

During the grant period, several DNA analysts were hired using state and other grant funds. The analysts were in

training during the entire grant project. Some of the new DNA analysts were trained by an external vendor, off-site,

reducing supervisor time needed to train the new staff. The training provided theory and practical laboratory

analysis labs. In-house training was still required, but not to the level or time commitment that it would have been

without this outside professional assistance.

Outsourced Validations

The Qiagility for sample set-up for the genetic analyzer was paid for by other funding. The use of this robot doubled

the productivity for the CODIS laboratory. The validation of the Tecan robot also led to an expedited process of

CODIS analysis such that the CODIS laboratory is now working samples in-house, as well as outsourcing. The

Tecan validation included the validation for the Identifiler Direct procedure, which eliminated the quantitation step of

analysis, thereby shortening analysis cycle time. These validation projects were all funded by other grants.

Other Activities

Staffing

Other grants were used to fund additional temporary positions, including five DNA technician positions. Several

local law enforcement agencies invested in additional DNA analyst positions. These analysts are employees of the

various agencies, but they are trained and work at the LSPCL, primarily on cases for the agency that is funding their

position. The agencies that hired the new analysts paid for their analyst‟s off-site training. The new analysts spent

the grant period in training. The technicians were trained and competency tested to perform maintenance and

quality control steps, as well as to screen evidence. Initially the technicians worked side-by-side with analysts, but

now they are fully trained and competent and work alone. They are now screening as part of the workflow, but

were not at the time the grant metrics were measured.

Equipment Purchases

Equipment was purchased, through funding of other grants and state funds, such as 4 EZ1 robots, 3 Qiagility

robots, 1 Tecan robot, 2 BSD punchers, 2 AB 7500 Quantitation instruments, thermomixers, barcode label printers,

barcode scanners, desktop scanners, computers, wipe erase boards and refrigerator/freezers. These were

important elements to increasing capacity and implementing changes as part of the LSS project.



20

1.8 SUMMARY STATEMENT

The changes made possible through this grant changed the culture of the DNA Forensic Unit and LSPCL as an

organization. The LSS projects provided a platform to make the equipment, personnel and services more effective.

LSS principles created production oriented, efficient processes that require accountability. The LSS foundation, to

produce quality results at a pace that more than meets the customer‟s expectations, has opened the possibility of

increased services and increased performance goals for the department. It was shown that LSS can be used to

improve a technical operation or a clerical process. The future at LSCPL includes LSS projects in all other

disciplines of the lab. While DNA is an ever-changing industry, foundational principles were developed and tools

were provided that will allow the LSPCL to operate efficiently and effectively, regardless of changes in the industry

of Forensic Science. Whatever the new challenge, be it increased submissions or a changing technology, LSS

practices will reveal opportunities for improvement, provide for adjustment, and seek a new goal of excellence. The

law enforcement agencies, judicial offices, and the public-at-large are better served today because of this grant

project.



21

SECTION 2: TECHNICAL REPORT

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory (LSPCL) is the state funded governmental crime laboratory for Louisiana.

LSPCL assists federal and local criminal justice and law enforcement agencies in the DNA analysis of forensic

evidence submitted as the result of criminal investigations. While various municipalities support six other labs

around the state, most of which also conduct DNA forensic casework, LSPCL serves the entire state. Since the

creation of the DNA forensic unit in 2000, there was a backlog of cases due to the collection of evidence in prior

years, in anticipation of DNA analysis.

While the number of DNA requests for analysis had increased every year (44.7% more for 2009 compared to 2008),

the throughput of casework analysis did not increase proportionately, leaving a backlog of forensic cases needing

analysis. See Figure 6 and 7.

Figure 6: LSPCL DNA requests received and completed annually 2006-2009

Figure 7: LSPCL Backlog by Year 2006-2009



22

At LSPCL, the turn-around-time (TAT) is defined as the number of work days that elapse from the date the DNA

request is submitted to the LSPCL laboratory to the date the forensic DNA report is released to the agency. In May

2008, TAT was 291 workdays.

Figure 8: LSPCL Turn-Around-Time by year 2006-2009

In that same year, 2008, LSPCL applied for the DNA Efficiency Improvement Grant.

LSPCL was faced with increasing DNA submittals, increasing turn-around-times, and thus an increasing backlog of

DNA cases. See Table 5. At the end of 2009, LSPCL had completed approximately 60% of the cases received

over the last four years, yielding a backlog of over 900 cases. While awarded in October 2008, the LSPCL spent

2009 utilizing other grants and planning for Efficiency Improvement Grant spending. The first Efficiency

Improvement Grant purchases and projects began in 2010.

Table 5: Note: Numbers may differ slightly from previously reported statistics due to cancelled requests.

*TATs include cases worked in-house as well as those cases that were outsourced, including quite a few cold cases.

Year # of DNA

requests

received

% Increase in # of

DNA requests

from previous year

# of DNA

requests

completed

% DNA

requests

completed

TAT* Backlog as

of Dec 31

# of

caseworking

FTEs

2006 843 -0.6% 458 54% 476 876 11

2007 1032 22.4% 433 42% 561 970 11

2008 1037 0.5% 350 34% 568 1194 8

2009 1501 44.7% 1374 92% 676 910 14

2010 1317 -12.3% 1771 134% 287 286 16+4

trainees



23

As Figure 9 shows, the number of requests completed varied based on the number of trained analysts. The

variation in analysts was partly due to staff turnover and the gap that resulted from the loss of trained analysts. The

time needed to train the replacement staff was lengthy due to the complicated nature of the training and the FBI

Quality Assurance Standard requirements. While the number of DNA staff at LSPCL is currently 20 FTEs, in 2007

the number was only 11. In 2008, a loss of 3 staff members resulted in a 27% decrease in staffing and a resulting

8% drop in completion rate. Time spent training new staff took analysts away from casework and contributed to

backlog growth. While staffing directly affects the capacity to complete cases timely, LSPCL sought to develop a

system that was not as critically dependent on staff turnover.

Figure 9: Historical trends as affected by Staffing

Louisiana‟s Strategic Operational Plan for 2013 includes a performance goal of the completion of 85% of all DNA

requests within 60 days. In 2008, only 4% of the DNA requests were completed in this time frame. A goal of the

grant project was to position the DNA Unit to achieve this performance standard as well.

The Louisiana Legislature enacted La. R.S. 15:601-620 to establish a DNA database of biological samples

submitted by certain offenders. The DNA database is searched against the profiles obtained from evidence

samples to yield investigative leads for law enforcement. The Louisiana DNA database houses over 400,000 DNA

profiles, which yielded over 750 hits in 2010 alone. The ability to process more forensic evidence would thereby

increase the number of hits obtained.

Dec 2006 11 Analysts


Dec 2008 8 Analysts



# DNA requests received

# DNA requests completed

Backlog

TAT (days)

Historical Trends as affected by Staffing



24

Outsourcing casework to vendor labs (through other grant and state funding) provided some relief, with over 1000

cases outsourced in 2009. While outsourcing was an effective method of substantially reducing the backlog while

new analysts were being trained, this was not a permanent solution as this was funded by federal and state funds

that were not necessarily a recurring resource. With 327 cases still needing analysis, there was a need to increase

the capacity and efficiency of the internal forensic case working laboratory to complete the cases, sustain capacity,

and prevent the formation of additional backlog.

One of the distractions to the laboratory analysis of backlogged cases was the need for the DNA analysts to

complete tasks other than labwork. Analysts were required to assist or carry out the purchase of supplies. Time

was spent searching vendors and pricing for supplies needed, obtaining quotes and submitting paperwork. Many

times the documents were not complete, according to state purchasing regulations, and had to be returned for

rework and resubmission. Time was spent responding to legal requests for documents, which required analysts to

search for the paper records, make copies or scan and send the requested information to the requesting agency,

many times with little lead time. Time was taken from the review of casework for Managers and Supervisors to

apply for, manage and document progress of federal grants and for inventory and budget management.

Preparations for accreditation inspections required a great deal of staff time to gather binders of lab documents for

auditors to review. A great deal of technical staff time was spent performing these administrative tasks.

With regard to the purchasing process, most of the DNA day-to-day supplies were ordered via state contract

vendors or through standing orders with specialty vendors that were renewed annually. In general standing orders

were placed quarterly and could take 4-6 weeks to be delivered to the laboratory. During the process, if a supply

was exhausted, the supervisor could request that a Crime Lab Manager make a credit card purchase for up to

$1000. Anything not on standing order, required that an order be routed through the state‟s purchasing database

process, known as ISIS. Purchase orders were issued and the vendor was notified of the purchase order and the

supplies were shipped. Standard practice was that the DNA Unit keep at least 3 months worth of supplies on hand

due to lengthy purchasing procedures. During the course of the request to delivery, it was not uncommon for the

DNA analysts to have to send several emails as to the status of the requested supply. All emails were routed

through their chain-of-command, so a minimum of 3-5 emails per inquiry was not uncommon. In addition, if the

analyst was requesting an item not ordered in the past, the analyst was asked to shop the item, its features and

give the supervisor the pricing, detailed specifications of the desired supply, and, depending on the cost of the item,

several sources where the item might be purchased. In addition to the lengthy process to get the order submitted to

the ISIS system, all purchases required approval through the administrative chain-of-command and then to the



25

Procurement Division for research and issuance of the purchase order. Figure 10 shows data of the turn-around-

times (TAT) of a sampling of Crime Lab purchase requests from request submittal (with all pricing, specifications,

and order documents) to the issuance of a purchase order, showing the average TAT of 39 workdays to PO

issuance.

Figure 10: Current State Purchasing TAT

While the average purchase order process TAT was 39 workdays (approximately 8 weeks), the variability in the

process was so great that the range could mean that a purchase could require as long as 92 workdays (over 4

months). During the “wait time” much analyst, supervisor and manager time was spent checking status, causing a

distraction to the technical laboratory work of casework.

In an effort to improve the service provided to clients, Louisiana applied to a competitive solicitation offered by the

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and was awarded grant

funds to complete the Forensic DNA Unit Efficiency Improvement project.



26

2.2 METHODS

The methods used in this multi-generational project were divided into three cohorts which overlapped: Improve the

DNA Forensic Analysis capacity and productivity, Leverage Technology, and Sustain with Clerical Time Savers.

The following outline organizes the various projects and purchases within the purposes they served and are

described in detail below.







2.2.2.2 Equipment and Supplies









27


LSPCL hired an external consultant to lead the organization through a process mapping improvement project.


LSPCL‟s approach to the project included hiring a consultant to:

Gather baseline data and an understanding of current processes

Provide process mapping documentation

Recommend improvements in administrative processes, personnel management, equipment,

technology tools and use of all available resources in providing efficient case file management and

performance monitoring of all phases of analysis

Assist the LSPCL staff and management in implementing accepted recommendations

Assist the LSPCL staff and management in developing management tools to institute performance

standard for the analysts and the DNA Unit as a department

Provide measurable results

Adjust process improvements as needed to meet performance metric goals as defined below

Provide a report that details the efficiency improvement methodologies as a model to be considered by

other forensic science laboratories.

A request for proposal competitive bid was conducted and Sorenson Forensics was awarded a professional

services contract to conduct a project to process map the current forensic DNA process from receipt of evidence to

analysis and reporting, provide measurable data to evaluate current productivity, identify “bottlenecks”, make

recommendations and create a plan and assist in the implementation of the improvements adopted by the LSPCL.

The vendor selected, Sorenson Forensics, proposed a Lean Six Sigma method of accomplishing these goals.

Sorenson Forensics Background

Sorenson Forensics, LLC is an internationally accredited (ASCLD/LAB-International) private forensic DNA

laboratory and consulting company located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Their scientists have diverse experiences

obtained from federal, state and local crime laboratories, other private DNA laboratories as well as clinical and

academic laboratories. They had expertise in all STR and Y-STR chemistry kits, mtDNA sequencing, every

available Quantification kit, and all common instruments used in a forensic DNA laboratory, including liquid handling

robots from a variety of manufacturers. Sorenson Forensics employed highly experienced and capable robotic



28

engineers, process engineers and bioinformatics software development engineers. Sorenson Forensics is a private

forensic DNA laboratory with a client base that spans the United States, Asia, Africa, Europe and the Middle East.

Sorenson Forensics offered its Executive Director, Tim Kupferschmid as the forensic DNA subject matter expert to

head this project. Additionally, Sorenson Forensics offered its long-term Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt

consultant Mr. Dirk Hooiman as the Lean Six Sigma subject matter expert.

Tim had spent his twenty-year career upgrading current and building new forensic DNA laboratories. Tim had

recently earned his Six Sigma Green Belt from a project he and his team completed for Sorenson Forensics last

year. Tim provided the forensic laboratory experience that was needed to support the technical recommendations.

Dirk Hooiman had over 35 years‟ experience in leading companies in the improvement process. He was

experienced in working with private, military and other public sectors. Dirk was certified by GE and Motorola as a

Six Sigma Master Black Belt and Certified in Lean through Boeing and a Master in the Toyota Production System

through Yamaha University. His most notable educational experience was studying directly under W. Edwards

Deming, Ph.D. and Yamaha University in Japan in the Toyota Production System. His studies have included

Organizational Development and Change Management, which are a critical element to assuring longevity in

improvement. Additionally he has multiple certifications through the American Society of Quality and the University

of Tennessee at the College of Productivity Improvement.

Goals

By utilizing the contractor‟s recommendations, the goals were as outlined in the awarded grant program, while

maintaining or improving the current level of quality and accreditation status.

The goals were:

Reduce case turn-around-time by 50%

Double productivity

Reduce case backlog by 50%

Increase the number of CODIS hits

Additionally, LSPCL, by utilizing the Contractor‟s recommendations, expected to develop management tools to

institute performance standards for the analysts and the DNA Unit as a department.



29

Feb ‘10 Mar ‘10

Project Analysis

Defined Designed

Apr ‘10 Jun ‘10 Sep ‘10

Project

Development:

Measure/Analyze

Pilot Project

Project Implementation:

Transition phase

Implement improvements

Measure effects of change

Project Evaluation

Improvements deployed

Measure new process

metrics & sustain

Adjust &

Reevaluate

metrics

Project Timeline

Lean Team

A team of seven managers and forensic scientists from LSPCL worked with Tim Kupferschmid and Dirk Hooiman,

the consultants from Sorenson Forensics, over a period of six months. The LSPCL team consisted of: Layne

Barnum, Laboratory Director (at that time); Melinda Richard, DNA CODIS Manager and Project Team Leader;

Adam Becnel, Crime Laboratory Manager; Joanie Wilson, Ph.D., DNA Casework Manager; Alyson Saadi, DNA

Technical Leader; Jeremy Dubois, DNA Analyst; and Erica Sparacino, DNA Analyst. Additional employees of

Sorenson that assisted with the project were Anthony Carter, Ph.D., Paternity Laboratory Director, Kevin Day,

Ph.D., Director of Operations and Chris Harmston, MS, Director of Quality and Applied Technologies.

Lean Six Sigma (LSS)

The method approach, for both the Forensic DNA and DNA Purchasing projects, was Lean Six Sigma. Lean Six

Sigma can be applied to any process or any industry. LSPCL used this methodology to enhance both a technical

scientific process and an administrative clerical process. The DMAIC steps guide the improvement process through

specific activities. Using the DMAIC steps ensures that the customer‟s needs are met, quality is maintained, and

goals are achieved.

DMAIC is an acronym for Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control. By systematically applying LSS

principles and foundational principles, a system can be revised to be productive and efficient, removing waste.

While numerous tools exist (too many to describe here), some are more appropriate than others, as dictated by the

process being improved. There are some tools that are common to all LSS projects. Those fundamental tools are

included in the discussion that follows.

Figure 11: Forensic DNA LSS Timeline



30

Lean Six Sigma is the unique combination of Lean Thinking and Six Sigma process improvement to form a

thorough and comprehensive approach to quality improvement, process improvement and the elimination of waste

to produce a remarkably efficient and quality driven product, the crime laboratory forensic DNA analysis report.

Introducing Lean Thinking. Lean thinking focused on enhancing value for the customer by improving and

smoothing the process flow while simultaneously reducing turnaround time and eliminating waste. Lean thinking

has been around since Henry Ford‟s first production line, but it has been developed and refined by the Toyota

Production System. Toyota took Henry Ford‟s original idea of high volume/low variety and applied it to high

variety/low volume processes. It is called “lean” not because it slashes costs or is stripped to the bone, but

because it reduces the timeline from when a customer places an order (or submits a piece of evidence) to when the

customer receives the product (final case report). It does this primarily by eliminating and reducing non-value

added waste. In summary, Lean is:

• A methodology to understand process value from the viewpoint of the customer and eliminate waste –

those activities that don‟t add value for the customer.

• A methodology to increase throughput and create a continuous flow of value-adding activities without

adding additional resources.

Introducing Six Sigma. Six Sigma is a systemic approach to quality improvement. Six Sigma focuses on the

customer and other key stakeholders. Six Sigma implementation calls for changing the way we think about and

manage the organization. In fact, it requires a complete organizational cultural change. Six Sigma cannot be

implemented immediately, but over time by working through a number of steps and processes. When Jack Welch,

former CEO of General Electric, introduced Six Sigma to his company, he understood this cultural change: “We are

going to shift the paradigm from fixing products to fixing and developing processes, so they produce nothing but

perfection or close to it.” In summary, Six Sigma is:

A rigorous performance improvement approach,

A customer-focused, data-driven methodology to understanding process variation and process

capability,

Supportive of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 quality systems through superior process management, tools and

sustainability controls.



31

Lean and Six Sigma together are complimentary – eliminating variation, defects and waste while creating high

quality, continuous and value-added flow. This approach is used in all industries from toaster manufacturers to

service providers such as banks and accountant offices. Some special considerations for forensic laboratories

included our unique accreditation and documentation requirements, our unique input (criminal evidence) and our

unique customer requirements. This project‟s emphasis was on ensuring that process re-engineering identified

workflow changes that generate measurable performance improvements and that the constraints of forensic

scientists, processes, machines and technology are assessed.

The combination of Lean thinking and Six Sigma variation reduction, when merged together, form seven guiding

principles. The principles are (1) focus on the customer, (2) identify and understand how the work gets done, (3)

manage, improve and smooth the process flow, (4) remove non-value added steps and waste, (5) manage by fact

and reduce variation, (6) involve and equip the people in the process, and (7) undertake improvement activity in a

systematic way.

DMAIC Methodology. DMAIC is the acronym that describes the seventh principal. It is a systematic improvement

framework, and it is the framework that the Sorenson Forensics / LSPCL team followed to make dramatic efficiency

improvements. DMAIC stands for Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control.

DEFINE: The Project Charter determines the project goals and scope based on the customer needs and the

processes that need to be improved.

• Output: Project Charter and Business Case, Current State Process Map, SIPOC Chart, and other

tools

MEASURE: Data is gathered that measures all of the details and timing of the current processes to establish a

performance baseline.

• Output: Detailed Identification and Measurements of Value-Added and Non-Value Added Activities.

Queue Time and Process Time measured, dentification of predictive measures (process

measures) and lagging measures (the output of the process). Development of a Load Balance

Chart.

ANALYZE: The Analyze Phase focuses on analyzing the data collected during the Measure Phase and

investigating the causes of the problems, bottlenecks, backlogs and defects uncovered during the previous two



32

phases. The Team was able to use a Load Level Chart to know where to focus improvement efforts. Hypothesis

testing of the Root Cause(s) is done. The team begins to see where to focus the improvements.

• Output: Validated Root Cause(s) and “Future State” Process Maps

IMPROVE: Design, build and implement a new process which improves performance as defined by the project

charter. Develop, implement and evaluate the solutions targeted at the verified root cause(s). All of the data

collection and analysis previously conducted makes the new process simple to visualize. The Improve Phase was

performed in three distinct segments that occurred in 3 months: design the new process (1 month); build the new

process (1 mo) ; and implement the new process (1 mo pilot).

• Output: 5S, Test and Learn to confirm the solution produces performance that meets the target

CONTROL: Ensure that the problem stays fixed and the new processes can be further improved over time. Control

phase is a management system that monitors process variables and performance measures. It enables

management to act based on statistical signals and behaviors to drive a culture that sustains the new system

promoting continuous improvement

• Output: Production Meetings, GEMBA walks, CAPA Charts, Process Management Plan; Control

Charts; Management Dashboard

The Control phase is the most important phase in the process. The lack of a “control” phase is why many other

management / process improvement methods have failed to achieve their promised results. The control phase

ensures that the improvements‟ gained are maintained.


Two EZ1 Advanced XL extraction robots, three thermocyclers, and four thermomixers were added to

increase capacity and decrease wait times. A 3130 genetic analyzer (4 capillary) was replaced with a 3130XL (16

capillary) to increase analysis capacity Two evidence drying cabinets were purchased to facilitate this.


A software program, iDASHBOARDS, was purchased to create visual graphics to display the performance metrics.

The program refreshes the data periodically through interfaces with the LIMS system, Justice Trax, or any other

database it is “pointed” to, including Excel spreadsheets. As part of the purchase, on-site training and report design



33

and development were contracted. Large monitors were mounted in the production meeting area to visually display

performance metric results, which are imported and refreshed daily, electronically.



In order to keep DNA analysts analyzing cases as well as implement robots and liquid handling instrumentation,

purchased by other grants and state funding, validation services were outsourced for the quantitation and

amplification set-up protocols for the Qiagility robots and the validation of the TECAN robot for Prepfiler extraction

protocols, for the extraction of buccal swabs and non-FTA blood card samples.

Qiagility Validation

In an effort to reduce the amount of time and supplies that DNA analysts spend pipetting samples for the

quantitation, amplification and genetic analysis, and to increase the accuracy of pipetting, LSPCL purchased three

Qiagility robots, using other federal grant funds. In order to implement the use of the robots, without casework

interruption, validation services were purchased for the validation of two Qiagilities (purchased using other grant

funding) for quantitation and amplification setup. Applied Biosystems‟ validation services provided all consumables

for the validation analysis, performed the validation of the robots, provided statistical data and the review and

evaluation of the data, investigated any outliers in the data, and provided teachback training of all validation

protocols, procedures and data. The third Qiagility (for genetic analysis set-up) was validated (using another

federal grant) for the process of validating a new Tecan robot for CODIS procedures.

Purchasing approval was obtained to use Applied Biosystems as the vendor. The objective of this validation was to

evaluate the QIAgility™ Robotic Workstation Serial Number (SN) Q050940 for PCR set-up, utilizing the Quantifiler®

Duo DNA Quantification Kit and AmpFlSTR® Profiler Plus®, COfiler®, MiniFilerTM, and Yfiler® Amplification Kits.

Validation studies were done in accordance with SWGDAM guidelines, and included a Quality Metrics Study,

Contamination Study, Precision Study, Sensitivity Study, Concordance Study, and Reproducibility Study. Sixty-

eight Quantifiler Duo standard curves (34 human and 34 male) were assessed for slope, y-intercept, and R2

values. A total of 34 standard curves were generated by standard dilutions prepared by the QIAgility, and 34 were

prepared manually. The QIAgility and manually generated data were compared to demonstrate reliable pipetting of

standard can be achieved by the QIAgility. Contamination was assessed by running 36 non-template controls in a

checkerboard and zebra pattern on the Quantifiler Duo quantification plate, and 44 negative amplification controls in



34

a checkerboard and zebra pattern on a Profiler Plus amplification plate. The Precision Study compared the

average Ct and standard deviation for all standard dilutions prepared manually versus on the QIAgility. A total of 10

data points for each dilution (i.e. 10 50ng, 10 16.7ng, etc) were compared for manually generated standards, and

10 data points for each dilution were compared for QIAgility prepared standards. The Senstivity Study assessed

the 34 standard curves for the average quantity and Ct values when each standard was defined as "unknown." The

Sensitivity Study also compared the average RFU between 44 non-probative samples amplified with Profiler Plus

manually versus on the QIAgility. The Concordance Study compared 44 non-probative buccal samples amplified

with Profiler Plus manually versus on the QIAgility for concordant STR profiles. Additionally, 50 non-probative

samples were amplified using the QIAgility using Profiler Plus and were compared to previously generated STR

profiles for concordance. Twenty-five of those samples were amplified with COfiler, MiniFiler, and Yfiler using the

QIAgility and were compared to previously generated results, as well as each other (where possible) for

concordance. A total of 94 non-probative samples (44 non-probative buccals and 50 non-probatives) were

compared for the reproducibility of the quantification results when quantification was done manually versus using

the QIAgility.



35

Prepfiler Validation

In an effort to reduce the amount of time and supplies that DNA analysts spend pipetting samples for extraction of

buccal swabs (CODIS offender and suspect references) and non-FTA bloodcard samples (as collected from victims

of sexual assaults), and to facilitate the processing of samples by the Tecan robot, in plates instead of tubes,

LSPCL purchased a Tecan robot (using other federal grant funds). In order to implement the use of the robot for

these sample types, without interruption to the analyzing of samples by the DNA Analyst, validation services were

purchased from Applied Biosystems to provide all consumables for the validation analysis, perform the validation of

the Prepfiler extraction, using the Tecan robot, provide statistical data, containing the review and evaluation of the

data, investigate any outliers in the data, and provide teachback training of all validation protocols, procedures and

data. Applied Biosystems‟ validation services were purchased to validate two sample types using the Prepfiler

extraction kit. The other CODIS sample types, FTA bloodcards and the Bode buccal collector, were validated with

Identifiler Direct using other grant funding. However, due to the Identifiler Direct methodology, these sample types

(buccal swabs and non-FTA bloodcards) required another extraction step. Prepfiler was chosen as the method of

extraction, hence a second validation for these two sample types was needed.

Purchasing approval was obtained to use Applied Biosystems as the vendor. A script verification was performed

extracting 16 buccal swabs in a checkerboard pattern to verify the script was functioning properly with no cross-

contamination. A contamination study was performed using 2 different extractions. On one plate, 40 high quality

swabs were extracted with 40 reagent blanks in a checkerboard pattern; in another plate 40 high quality swabs

were extracted with 40 reagent blanks in a zebra pattern. Forty bloodstains (10 samples punched 4 times each)

were extracted, normalized, and amplified with Profiler Plus & COfiler and compared to previously generated results

for concordant profiles. The replicate samples were also compared to each other for concordance.


One of the LSS project improvements was to reduce the movement around the laboratory during steps and

between steps to eliminate “motion” and “transportation” waste. Barcode scanners, a Datamax barcode printer,

desktop scanners,and desktop printers for CODIS were purchased for this purpose. Additional equipment was

purchased, as needed, using other available funding through the state and other grants.



36

Already addressed above, was the implementation of more robotic solutions, walk away work stations, and

electronic data gathering and manipulation. Imaging technology is addressed in 2.2.3 Sustain with Clerical Time

Savers.



Reorganization of the Crime Lab structure formed a Business Unit to assume the responsibilities of most

administrative tasks. The intent was to allow the DNA Analysts and Supervisors the time to focus strictly on

forensic casework and technical operations. The Business Unit was staffed with current staff, who were already

performing many of the functions already.


A professional service contract was engaged to conduct a second LSS project to increase the efficiency of DNA

supplies and services procurement process. This project focus was to provide the DNA staff with the tools they

needed to perform their duties without delay and with as little involvement in procurement as possible. With the

assistance of the LSS Consultant, steps in the process were addressed to create an easier process and reduce the

time from the determination of the supply need to the product delivery. The net goal was to remove the scientists

from engaging in purchasing tasks as much as possible.

LSPCL‟s approach was to hire a consultant to:

Use the Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodology to define the current state, make a business case for

the need for improvements, gather baseline data and process map the purchasing process from

request to issuance of a purchase order

Make recommendations for improvements to the process through personnel management,

procedures, equipment, technology tools, and use of all available resources in providing efficient

purchasing management and performance monitoring of all phases of the purchasing process.

Assist the LSPCL staff and management in the implementation of accepted recommendations to

increase efficiency and meet performance metric goals of the project. Any policies and procedures



37

implemented will be compliant with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) DNA Quality

Assurance Standards (effective July 1, 2009) and American Society of Laboratory Directors

Laboratory Accreditation Board International Program (ASCLD/LAB- International) requirements)

and current Louisiana State Police and LSPCL lab policy.

Assist the LSPCL staff and management in developing management tools to institute performance

standards for the department

Assess data and provide measurable result data

Adjust processes as needed to meet performance metric goals as defined

Provide materials, instruction and testing to certify an LSPCL staff member as a Lean Six Sigma

Black Belt Engineer.

Provide a final report that details the efficiency improvement methodologies as a model to be

considered by other forensic science laboratories

The LSS Black Belt Engineer designation is a title given to an individual who has shown a level of expertise that

allows them to lead future LSS projects. To accomplish this level of certification (in LSS‟s internal structure) the

individual must pass a certification exam, complete a project that yields at least $100,000 in savings and be

approved, by the Master Black Belt Instructor, as having designed, launched and executed a LSS project(s) with

leadership skills and project management that is worthy of the highest level of certification. A certification exam is

also administered. Having their own internal Black Belt Engineer provides LSPCL the ability to conduct additional

projects throughout, not only the Crime Lab, but the entire Department. The goal was to increase the efficiency with

which the DNA Unit interacts with other departments, as well as globally enhance the way Louisiana does business

within state government.

CTQ Consulting Group Background

CTQ Consulting Group works with clients to improve their performance results and ROI (return on investment)

through the use of LEAN Six Sigma Engineering. CTQ is an abbreviation of the Six Sigma phrase “Critical to

Quality” and describes the process of improving customer delight through process design, execution and



38

measurable results. Kathi Sill, President of CTQ Consulting Group, has been certified as a Lean Six Sigma Master

Black Belt Engineer since 2009 and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Engineer since 2004. Ms. Sill had recently

completed a Process Efficiency Mapping Project at the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED, Columbia,

SC). As a result of this project the SLED laboratory was able to achieve a 78% improvement in DNA casework

turnaround time. In addition to HID laboratories, CTQ has also worked with clients in the Manufacturing, Financial,

Political, Biotech and Retail industries. Prior to founding CTQ Consulting Group, Ms. Sill enjoyed a 30 year career

with Bank of America, retiring as a Senior Vice President of the Corporation and as the Quality and Productivity

Executive. While the last 10 years of her career centered in Six Sigma Process Improvement, her first 20 years

were spent driving revenue, sales management and customer satisfaction.

Goals

By utilizing the contractor‟s recommendations, the goals were as follows:

Decrease the average DNA purchasing process cycle time

Change the mix of purchase types

Decrease staff time spent performing purchasing tasks

Additionally, LSPCL, by utilizing the Contractor‟s recommendations, expected to develop management tools to

institute performance standards for the department.

Figure 12: DNA Purchasing LSS Project Timeline



39

A team of six staff members from LSPCL and the Management and Finance departments worked with Kathi Sill, the

consultant from CTQ Consulting Group, over a period of three months on this efficiency project: February 9 through

May 11, 2011. The LSPCL team consisted of: Charron Thomas, Deputy Director of the LSP Crime Lab, Melinda

Richard, CODIS DNA and Business Unit Manager and Project Team Leader; Christie McCollough, Grants

Coordinator and Business Unit staff member, Santina Spears, Business Unit staff member, Erin Bielkiewicz,

Management and Finance management; and Marci Herndon, a DNA Analyst. Additional employees of Louisiana

State Police were called upon as subject matter experts during the four on-site consultant sessions.

The methodological approach applied by CTQ was the same Lean Six Sigma methodology used in the forensic

efficiency project. The DMAIC process was used to Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control changes that

led to achieving the project goals.


The imaging of 310,625 historical documents to create electronic records was the approach to make the binders

of paper documents easily referenced by indexes, easily accessed from the network, and backed up nightly. In

addition to making records readily available to all staff, the removal of shelves of binders and file cabinets created

space to used for additional DNA work space. Kofax and Content Manager software were purchased to facilitate

imaging, indexing and upload to the network server, where staff can access the records as needed from their

workstation. In addition to being scanned, all records were OCR processed to allow the “find” feature. Records

included in the scanning project included the following:




Validation studies



CODIS sample collection logs and CODIS hit confirmation documents

A competitive bid process was conducted under the guidance of the Data Department. Advanced Imaging

Solutions was awarded the project.



40

In addition to contracting a vendor to scan the current records, a high speed scanner was purchased to facilitate

the staff‟s continued efforts in generating electronic copies of records going forward, using the same imaging and

indexing software. The high speed scanner allows all incoming or newly-created documents to be scanned,

indexed and filed electronically by clerical staff. The clerical staff can then reference and provide the necessary

documents easily, without leaving their workstation and without interrupting analysts performing casework, thereby

decreasing time needed for this administrative task.


Qualtrax Compare software was purchased as an enhancement to the Qualtrax software purchased with prior

grant funds. This module allows for documents to be compared electronically with revisions flagged for the

reviewer. This decreases the administrative time needed in comparing, reviewing and approving revised

procedures, worksheets and policies. Because the DNA Technical Leader is primarily responsible for this function,

it creates more time for casework related functions.


While barcode software, computer, and barcode scanners were supplied by the lab consumable vendor, shelving

was for the on-site store was not provided. LSPCL purchased shelving to facilitate the creation of the on-site store/

warehouse for DNA supplies. The vendor performs the management of the store and the inventory tracking and

refilling, with oversight by the Business Unit.



41

2.3 RESULTS

Results are discussed in the same outline as the methods, organized by the various projects and purchases within

the purposes they served.
















42



The following outlines the discussion on the results of the LSS project focused on improving the DNA Forensic DNA

analysis workflow:

Summary of the Project

Schedule

Discussion of DMAIC

Define

Project Charter

Current State

Process Map

Spaghetti Maps

SIPOC

Current State Value Stream Map (VSM)

Measure

VAT vs NVAT

Root Cause Analysis

Kaizen Event

CTQ Tree

Analyze

Load Level Charts

Improve

Workflow schedules

Control

Statistical Results


The process improvement team from LSPCL and Sorenson Forensics met for a total of twenty-nine days from April

20, 2010 to September 29, 2010. Below is a brief outline of the lessons taught and the tasks completed during the

Laboratory Lean Six Sigma sessions: Then what follows is additional detail to give the reader a concise summary

of the project.

Schedule

March 5: Conference call with LSPCL Project and Consultants to initially discuss the project.



43

April 20-22: Define Phase. Orientation and assessment of the LSPCL DNA process, its goals and its challenges.

Introduction of the DMAIC process, including the concepts of Six Sigma, a waste factory, SWOT

analysis, organizational effectiveness, project charter, process map, spaghetti charts, SIPOC chart,

value stream map and Gemba walks.

May 4-5: Measure Phase. Tollgate presentation of Define phase. Stakeholder meeting. Begin Measure Phase.

May 11-12: Measure Phase. Concepts discussed include takt time, percent load charts, 7-ways, 5-whys tree

diagram, story board, balanced scorecard, CTQ tree. Kaizen event to eliminate review backlog was

initiated.

May 25-26: Analyze Phase. Tollgate presentation of Measure phase. Kaizen event to eliminate review backlog.

Concepts discussed include management system, leading/lagging indicators, S&OP schedule, and

leader standard work.

June 8-9: Improve Phase. Continue to eliminate review backlog. Begin discussion on building a Future State

Map with emphasis on waste reduction / elimination. Start to get entire DNA staff involved in the

process. Begin cultural change.

June 15, 16: Conference calls

June 22-23: Improve Phase. Continue to eliminate review backlog. CTQ Tree peer review process map discussion,

continue to design future state map, level load charts.

June 28-30: Improve Phase. Define needs for an effective IT solution in the DNA lab. Build future state map.

July 13, 14: Conference calls

July 20-21: Improve Phase. Discussion about leadership behaviors, including Herzberg motivation theory, head-

hand-heart concept, 5S, PDCA cycle, S&OP schedule. Choreograph the Pilot. Pilot of future state

process starts on July 26.

July 27-28: Improve Phase. Review days 1 and 2 of the pilot – the good, the bad and the ugly. Make changes,

improvements and tweaks. Leader standard work discussion, case triage discussion, begin “comments

sheets” to capture problems/issues. Discussion on team dynamics and composition including



44

personality – PA/PT (passive aggressive / people task) and Myers Briggs Type Indicator. Discussion

on meeting effectiveness and change management.

Aug 4: Conference call

Aug 10-11: Improve Phase. Aug 9 was start of week 3 of pilot. Debrief first two weeks of pilot.

Aug 16: Conference call

Aug 24-25: Improve Phase and introduce control phase. This phase confirms that the proposed solution will meet

or exceed the quality improvement goals of the project.

Sept 8-9: Control Phase. Once the project is closed it is not over. If process performance strays out of

specification, immediate corrective actions occur to re-adjust and re-monitor to ensure there has not

been an over-adjustment.

Sept 20-21: Control Phase continued.

Sept 29: Presentation of final report to all stakeholders.

Discussion of DMAIC

Define Phase

The define phase requires that you define the problem before you can begin to solve it. One of the key outputs

from the define phase is the Project Charter. The charter contains the following elements:

A high level business case providing an explanation of why undertaking the project is important.

A problem statement defining the issue to be resolved.

A goal statement describing the objective of the project.

The project scope defining the parameters and identifying any constraints.

The CTQs (critical to quality) specifying the problem from the customers‟ perspective.

Roles identifying the people involved in and around the project, including their expectations and

responsibilities.

Milestones summarizing the key steps and provisional dates for achieving the goal.



45

Table 6 : The Project Charter for the LSPCL Lean Six Sigma DNA Laboratory Efficiency Improvement Project.

Project Leader: Melinda Richard Team Members: Captain Layne

Barnum, Adam Becnel, Joanie

Wilson, Alyson Saadi, Jeremy

Dubois, Erica Sparacino

Business Case: As of 4/20/2010, a 674 DNA request backlog exists.

While approximately 2/3 of these cases have been outsourced, 218

are pending analysis. In some cases our own customers have begun

to outsource the analysis due to extended turnaround time. Last

quarter (Q1 2010), only 18% of the requests met the 60-day

turnaround time performance indicator. To date, LSPCL is not aware

of any cases where judicial proceedings were missed; however,

delays occur and many times cases have to be rushed, leading to

greater inefficiency. *While these numbers have changed, the figures

listed represented the current state at the time of the Project Charter.

Team Consultants: Tim

Kupferschmid, Dirk Hooiman

Problem/Opportunity Statement: Based on performance indicator

data and feedback from customers, current turnaround time and

throughput has resulted in a backlog of DNA request, which prevents

LSPCL from meeting the expectations of its customers and

administration.

Goal Statement: To increase

throughput, reduce turnaround

time and eliminate the backlog of

forensic DNA casework analysis.

Project Scope: To address the process of forensic DNA analysis

from the receipt of evidence to the return of evidence with the goal to

increase throughput and decrease turnaround time of DNA analysis

which will reduce the backlog of forensic DNA casework and increase

the number of CODIS hits provided to customers.

Stakeholders: Col. Jim Mitchell

(LE/Adm), Major Adam White

(LE/Adm), Lt. Ike Vavasseur (LE-

BRPD), Chief Deputy Jason Ard

(LE), Sgt. Todd Morris (LE-

EBRSO), Mark Dumaine (ADA),

Major Ritchie Johnson (DA

Investigator/LE)



46

Current State

The LSS project addressing the efficiency of the DNA forensic casework process began April 10, 2010.

At the start of the LSS efficiency project the following were the current state statistics:

Backlog = 738 requests

Turnaround Time = 124 workdays (this figure includes cold cases)

CODIS Hits = 715 (2009- An overall average of 59.6 hits/ month.)

Productivity= 345 (# samples/month)

Equipment & Resources

At the beginning of the Forensic DNA LSS project, the following represented the staff resources in the DNA Unit

(including CODIS):

17 qualified DNA analysts

6 DNA analysts-in-training

4 DNA technicians-in-training

3 Supervisors

1 Manager

At the beginning of the Forensic DNA LSS project the following represented the equipment resources and

chemistries of the LSPCL DNA Unit :

Extraction: EZ1 extraction robots (7)

Thermomixers (3) & Incubators (2)

Quantitation: AB 7000 (2) [2- AB 7500s to be traded and validated]

Amplification: Applied Biosystems AmpFSR Profiler and COfiler chemistries

AB 9700 Thermocyclers (6)

Genetic Analyzers: 3130 (3) & 3130XL(1)

3 Qiagility robots (not validated/performance checked) & 1 Tecan robot (not validated/performance checked)

Software: Genemapper ID 3.1 & Justice Trax (LIMS)



47

Other notes: Extraction and Amplification in tubes, paper case files with screening notes manually

recorded,

Evidence photos taken with digital cameras, attached in Justice Trax, but also printed for case file

LSPCL maintains a server network where electronic data and documents can be stored; however, current state

is that all worksheets, protocols, pictures and communication logs were printed and stored in the paper case

file.

Process Map

An important element of the design phase is the creation of a current state process map. For this project, a “level 2”

process map was performed. Level 2 refers to the level of detail. In this case it is at the level of detail of the

standard operating procedure (SOP) level. A level 1 process map is a high-level visual representation of the entire

process. For example, a level 1 process for forensic DNA processing may be

extraction→quantification→amplification→electrophoresis→analysis→report writing.

Conversely, a level 3 process map is one where the level of detail is down to the work instructions. Below is the

level 2 process map of the LSPCL forensic DNA process.

Photograph 1: Photograph of the current state process map constructed by the team. The process map lists the twelve major steps of

the process and the major functions under each step.



48

The rough drawing was typed into an electronic workflow document. There are 3 separate pictures needed to

encompass the entire DNA analysis workflow. See Figures 13-15.

Figure 13: Current state process map showing the twelve major process steps and the corresponding detail under each step.

Steps 1-3.



49

Figure 14: Current state process map showing twelve major process steps and the corresponding detail under each step.

Steps 4-8.



50

Figure 15: Current state process map showing twelve major process steps and the corresponding detail under each step-

Steps 9-12

Spaghetti Charts

Next, current state spaghetti charts were created. A spaghetti chart is a graphical illustration of the actual physical

movement of people and evidence throughout the laboratory. Processes that have not been streamlined are

frequently poorly laid out with work taking a path through the work area that looks like a bowl of cooked spaghetti.

To create the spaghetti charts, laboratory staff took a scale map of the laboratory and walked and measured the

flow of the entire laboratory process. These paths were drawn on the scale map including all processes until the

work product exits the work area. Examination of this resulting chart shows where improvements can be made.

Below is the spaghetti chart for the case that contains only blood evidence. A total of 8,808 feet are traveled to

process this single case. It takes approximately 1 second to travel 2 feet (one step). Thus, 8,808 feet take

approximately 73.4 minutes to walk. The different colors represent different processes as described in the process

map.



51

Figure 16: Current state spaghetti chart of a simple blood-only evidence case. A total of 8,808 feet (1.67 miles) were traveled to

complete processing this case. Each different color represents a different step of the process.



52

Below is the spaghetti chart for a typical sexual assault case processed at LSPCL. This type of case travels 12,687

feet, or 2.4 miles for a single case! The time to travel this distance is 106 minutes. If this laboratory processed 400

sexual assault cases one at a time, for instance, the staff would spend 42,400 minutes or 707 hours in a year. A

typical working year is 2,080 hours (40 hr/week x 52 weeks/yr). Thus, the motion waste of this process is 34% of

an employee‟s work year.

Figure 17: Current state spaghetti chart of a simple sexual assault case. A total of 12,687 feet (2.4 miles) were traveled to

complete processing this case. Each different color represents a different step of the process.



53

SIPOC

A SIPOC chart is the next tool used during the define phase. SIPOC stands for Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs

and Customers. SIPOC charts are created backwards. First, the SIPOC model identifies your customers and the

outputs they need. Then, the process is the process map created above. The inputs are listed. Inputs include

supplies, consumables, reagents, equipment and personnel. Finally, suppliers are the sources for all of the inputs.

In LSPCL‟s case, customers (law enforcement officers) are also the suppliers of the raw material (case evidence).

Below is the LSPCL‟s SIPOC:

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

Law Enforcement Agencies

Investigators

District Attorneys

Defense Attorneys

Supply/Consumable Vendors

Case evidence & case

information

Scientific methods,

policies and procedures

and training

Manpower = analysts,

technicians, managers,

administration,

purchasing, warehouse,

evidence receiving dept.

Compliance – safety,

accreditation, inspections,

audits, standards

Reagents, supplies,

equipment

1. Evidence Received

2. Triage

3. Screening

4. Digest & Purification

5. Quantification

6. Normalization

7. Amplification

8. Genetic Analyzer

9. Data Review &

Interpretation

10. Report Writing

11. Review

12. Evidence Return

DNA Scientific Analysis

Report

Returned evidence and

stored retained evidence

Expert Testimony

Accurate

TAT < 60 days

Customer Service

Professional, timely expert

testimony

Support during case

challenges

Table 7: SIPOC of the LSPCL DNA case process.



54

Value Stream Map (current state)

The final input from the Define phase is the backbone of the Current State Value Stream Map. Value stream

mapping is a Lean Manufacturing tool used to analyze the flow of materials and information currently required to

bring a product or service to a consumer. Essentially, the value stream map (VSM) is an extension of the process

map. What differentiates this map is that, during the Measure Phase, it will be populated with data from the current

state of the process.

Figure 18: Current state Value Stream Map (VSM) of the LSPCL DNA Process. The rectangles indicate a process that needs to be

completed. The triangles indicate a place where inventory or work-in-process (WIP) builds up.



55

Measure Phase

After the current state of processing DNA cases throughout the laboratory was defined, how and how well the work

gets done was clarified. Measurement was a key transitional step in the Lean Six Sigma process.

A major portion of the Measure Phase was spent filling in the value stream map with data. Concepts such as Takt

time and cycle time were explained and implemented into the value stream map. Takt time is the amount of time

available to perform a task divided by customer demand. For example, if the customer demand is eight cases per

day, then the Takt time is one case per hour. Cycle time is the time it takes for the product to move from the

beginning to the end of the process. It includes the time the case may spend in a queue. For example, it may take

40 hours (5 days) to work a single case in a manual fashion, however, the actual time (turnaround time) is 60 days

because of the case spends 55 days in the backlog queue.

Photograph 2: Measurements from the Current State Value Stream Map (VSM).

The VSM yielded the following measurements of the current state process. TAT stands for turn-around-time; total

queue time refers to the amount of time the cases are sitting in a queue waiting to be worked; total process time is

the amount of time it takes one case to be processed through the lab without interruption; VAT stands for value

added time – the amount of time spent adding what the end customers considers valuable to them; NVAT stands

for non-value added time; WIP (work in progress) is the number of cases in progress; total transport/motion

distance and time is the distance a case travels throughout the lab and the time it takes to walk those steps.



56

Figure 19: VAT vs NVAT

Root Cause Analysis

Another Measurement Phase event the team performed was a root cause analysis on other portions of the

laboratory process, such as evidence receiving and differential extraction. Below is an example of the root cause

analysis, using a fishbone diagram, performed why the evidence receiving step took over 180 min (3hrs) to perform.

The fishbone diagram contains four major units – manpower, machines, methods and materials. This analysis

shows the following:

Manpower: Evidence Room Staff not trained to evaluate cases. Sup/Mgr must evaluate cases.

Materials: No electronic shortcuts in JusticeTrax such as label printing for tubes; Blood card needs to dry

faster; No equipment to dry blood cards

Methods: Retrieval from TC24 is a long distance from lab; drying time takes 1 hr.; SANE nurse doesn‟t

collect the samples; Paperwork (LOC) not scanned; JusticeTrax doesn‟t electronically print tube labels;

JusticeTrax doesn‟t have helpful tools like electronic flow charts built internal.

Machine: Work space has to be sterilized using ultraviolet light before and after it is used. This process

takes one hour. No equipment is available to speed drying. Presently, there is no way to shut off ultraviolet

light automatically.



57

Figure 20: Fishbone diagram of the Evidence Receiving process.

Kaizen Event

A major problem was discovered early in the measure phase. This problem caused the Laboratory Lean Six Sigma

project to pause and address it. It was observed, during the measure phase, that there was a tremendous backlog

of cases, many of which were analyzed by "outsource labs", that had not been through the review process. At

LSPCL, there is a three step review process: (a) Peer Reviews are a review of the case paperwork by a less

experienced DNA analyst; (b) Technical Reviews are a review of the data and interpretation of the case performed

by a more experienced DNA analysts and (c) Administrative Reviews are a second independent technical review

performed by one of four supervisors.

These case reviews consisted of cases that were worked in-house and those that were outsourced to vendor

laboratories. On May 11, 2010, during the third visit to the laboratory by the Sorenson team and four weeks into the

project, a Kaizen Event was developed to burn-down the case review backlog. A Kaizen Event is a highly focused

effort to solve a particular problem.

The overall efficiency improvement project was paused to address this case review backlog because it became

apparent that the required productivity and efficiency gains could not be achieved with this huge review backlog in

existence. The team held a brainstorming session to determine the best way to attack the case review backlog.



58

The original plan consisted of a team, or cell, of two peer reviewers, 2 technical reviewers and one administrative

reviewer. This cell would sit together in the same room and complete a goal of 18 cases in one day. A great deal

was learned from this pilot study. For instance, there must be an effective feedback system with teaching

opportunities and possibly the need for retraining within the review process. Flags are marked when a reviewer

notes a nonconformance. The team kept track of the types of flags that were being caught in each review step.

These flags, in six sigma terms, are called defects. Here we will use the term “flags” as this more closely reflects

the actual situation. They were tracked and plotted onto a Pareto chart (see below) and a root cause analysis was

performed. Theory suggests that eighty-five percent of all flags are caused by the system, not the individual.

Additional tools used during this process were the 5-Whys Tree Diagram, CTQ Tree, and the Balanced Score Card.

Figure 21: A Pareto diagram of the flags discovered during Peer, Technical and Administrative Reviews. The flag with the most

occurrences (clerical errors) is listed first, followed by the remaining flags in order of occurrence.



59

CTQ Tree

A CTQ Tree (Critical to Quality) are the key measurable characteristics of a product or process whose performance

standards or specification limits must be met in order to satisfy the customer. They align improvement or design

efforts with customer requirements. To put it in layman's terms, CTQs are what the customer expects of a product.

CTQ trees were developed for each step of the case review process.

Figure 22: CTQ tree of the Peer Review process.



60

Figure 23: CTQ tree of the Technical Review process.

Figure 24: CTQ tree of the Administrative Review process.



61

The goal of this Kaizen Event was to complete as much of the case reviews as possible. A strict schedule was

created for each type of review (peer, technical and administrative). By July, nearly all of the backlogged case

reviews had been completed. Below is an example of the visual schedule and the daily goals. The number of

cases reviewed each day was charted and displayed for all to see the progress on this project.

Figure 25: Target and Completed chart of administrative reviews conducted during the last week of May and the month of June

2010. The target of cases reviewed was overachieved this month. A total of 229 cases were administratively reviewed by four

scientists during this five week period.

Analyze Phase

The Analyze Phase focuses on analyzing the data collected during the Measure Phase and investigating the

causes of the problems, bottlenecks, backlogs and defects uncovered during the previous two phases. Typically,

the Analyze Phase involves statistical analysis of the measured data. However, in our case, the majority of the

analyze phase involved the construction of a Level Load Chart to help create flow throughout the laboratory.

Additionally, the laboratory was continuing to burn down the case review backlog during this phase of the project.

Daily Production Meetings were implemented in June to keep track of and maintain the progress being made with

the case review backlog. These Daily Production Meetings continued throughout the remainder of the project and

has become a permanent activity for LSPCL.

0

50

100

150

200

250

5.27 5.29 5.31 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.10 6.12 6.14 6.16 6.18 6.20 6.22 6.24 6.26 6.28 6.30

# o

f C

ases

Days of review

ADMIN REVIEW as of 6-30-10

TargetCompleted



62

Load Leveling Charts

A Japanese term, Heijunka refers to a system of production designed to provide a more even and consistent flow of

work. Heijunka involves smoothing processing and production using leveling and sequencing. Leveling is the

smoothing of the volume of production in order to reduce variation and keep a consistent flow. This technique

seeks to prevent end-of-period peaks, for example the beginning of the month may be slow but the last days of the

month are rushed in order to meet monthly goals. Sequencing involves mixing the kinds of work processed to

match customer demand and laboratory capability. At LSPCL, sequencing was accomplished by batching a difficult

homicide case with two sexual assault cases and several simple burglary cases. This batching or triage system

roughly matches the mix of cases received in the laboratory. As is always the case at LSPCL, crimes against

persons are prioritized over all other crimes.

Keeping things balanced and level means the process flows smoother which results in faster processing time.

Below is the image of the level load chart that described the processes of the DNA lab and its corresponding time.

From these data, a new system was designed so processes could be grouped or additional personnel could be

added to make all the processes take a similar amount of time.

Figure 26: Level load chart of the DNA laboratory process. The x-axis lists the steps of the process while the y-axis is the

number of hours each process takes.



63

Improve Phase

Much data collection and analysis must precede this phase to identify the root cause of the problem. The Improve

Phase involves three distinct segments: (a) generate ideas about possible solutions, (b) select the most appropriate

solution and (c) plan and test the solution. The majority of June was spent designing the solution (new laboratory

process), July was spent building the solution and August was spent implementing the solution. The Control Phase

(next section) occurred primarily during the month of September.

Remember, before a new DNA casework production system could be designed, built and implemented, the case

review backlog had to be nearly eliminated. Again, this project took the form of a Kaizen Event, a rapid solution to a

growing problem (see Kaizen Event section above).

Photograph 3: A tabletop simulation of the

new schedule logistics was discussed.

Workflow schedules

The solution discussed, fine-tuned and finally implemented during the pilot study is a five-day laboratory process

that consists of four (4) technicians acting in a support role and teams of three (3) DNA analysts performing the

majority of the lab work, interpretation, reporting, and quality checks. The technical review was performed by

analysts not currently scheduled to work in the lab (see master schedule below).

Concisely, the five day new production process is listed in the photographs below. Work Instructions for each

individual are provided. This process was conceived, revised, implemented and revised several additional times to

the point where it is today. As problems and roadblocks were encountered, changes, modifications and fixes were

implemented.



64

Photograph 4: The five day laboratory process



65

Analyst 1

Day 1

7:30-11:30 Screen hard case #1 in screening room #1

Inventory evidence against submittal form

Screen evidence

Take pictures

Take notes

Perform serology tests

Fill out extraction protocols and load/label tubes

11:30-12:30 Lunch

12:30-3 Screen hard case #2 in screening room #1

Inventory evidence against submittal form

Screen evidence

Take pictures

Take notes

Perform serology tests

Fill out extraction protocols and load/label tubes

3-4 Digest 2 hard cases in extraction room after screening completed

-If time permits,

EZ1 hard cases

Digest references

EZ1 references

Day 2

7:30-9:30 EZ1 hard cases from day 1.

Give analyst 3 the extracts to be quintet.

9:30-11 Process peer review for team members

Review screening notes & extraction protocols for analyst 2 (1 SA cases & 2 easy cases)

(If analyst 3 is in a time crunch, also review references paperwork from tech 4/analyst 2)

11-11:30 Make labels for amp tubes & put labels on tubes/prepare hood & UV hood

Place labels on all samples in both systems (PP & CO) until implementation of Identifier Plus



66

Each analyst should amp their own references

11:30-12:30 Lunch

12:30-1 Retrieve quant data & print. Put all SP numbers for yourself on 1 pink sheet. Hand write in the EB

adjustments. Write all SP #‟s on pink sheet, write only SP# pertaining to case on std. curve, plate

& report. Highlight samples that pertain to case on pink sheet, plate & report.

1-1:30 Fill out PC/AB on amp sheet and write “see DNA 311” for concentrations/adjustments for samples.

1:30-2 Process peer review for analyst 2 (quant and first sheet of amp protocols)

2- 4 Amp samples (Clean out Amp hood after you‟re -finished amping)

Day 3

7:30 – 8:30 Create template for samples going onto 3130-1

8:30 – 9:30 Prepare master mix, pipette samples onto plate & load plate

Ensure 3130 maintenance/reagent records logs are filled out and check injection times on plate

manager

9:30 – 11:30 Peer review, tech review or make corrections to your own cases

11:30 –12:30 Lunch


3:30 – 4 Review data and do re-injects

Day 4

7:30 – 10:30 Evaluate data & print data for both hard cases (1 printer per analyst)

10:30 – 12:30 Chart STRs for hard case #1

12:30 – 1:30 Lunch

1:30 – 4 Hard case #1

Write reports, perform stats, CODIS eligibility, deduced profile sheets

Day 5

7:30 – 9:30 Chart STRs for hard case #2

9:30 – 12:30 Hard case #2

Write reports, perform stats, CODIS eligibility, deduced profile sheets

12:30 – 1:30 Lunch

1:30 – 4 Complete peer review for analyst 2‟s cases (2 easy & 1 SA)

Retain Extracts for cases worked during this batch

Analyst 2



67

Day 1

7:30 – 9:30 Screen in screening room #2 the 2 easy cases & digest samples in extraction room

9:30- 10:30 PBS wash for differential

10:30 - 11:30 Presumptive tests (Prepare slides, AP, look at slides & p30 if needed)

Let tech 4 know if the references for the sexual assault requires screening

11:30 - 12 Prepare E fraction for digest (put in incubator at 12 so they are ready for 2pm)

12-2:00 Digest E fraction

12-1 Lunch

1-2 EZ1 two easy cases/coordinate with analyst 3 regarding EZ1 usage

2-3 Sperm washes

3 - O/N Digest S fraction

3- 4 EZ1 E fraction after sperm washes are complete & then digest references that tech 4 screened

-Flexible on screening/differential start times – analyst can follow schedule or start differential first

then screen easy cases during PBS soak of differential.

Day

7:30– 9:30 EZ1 references then give extracts to analyst 3 for quant

Remove extracts from freezer (2 easy cases & E fractions) & give them to analyst 3 for quant

9:30 – 11 Process peer review

Screening notes and extraction protocols for analyst 3 (2 easy cases & 1 SA)

(If analyst 3 is in a time crunch, also review 1 of analyst 1‟s hard cases)

11-11:30 Make labels for amp tubes & put labels on tubes/prepare hood & UV hood

Place labels on all samples in both systems (PP & CO) until implementation of Identifier Plus


11:30-12:30 Lunch

12:30-1 Retrieve quant data & print. Put all SP numbers for yourself on 1 pink sheet. Hand write in the EB




1:30-2 Process peer review for analyst 3 (quant and first sheet of amp protocols)

2- 4 Amp samples (Clean out Amp hood after you‟re -finished amping)

Day 3



68

7:30 - 8:30 Create template for samples going onto 3130-XL

8:30 - 9:30 Prepare master mix, pipette samples onto plate & load plate


manager

9:30 - 11:30 Peer review, tech review or make corrections to your own cases

11:30- 12:30 Lunch

12:30 - 3:30 Peer review, tech review or make corrections to your own cases

3:30-4 Review data and do re-injects

Day 4

7:30-10:30 Evaluate data & print data for all cases (1 printer per analyst)

10:30- 12:30 Chart STRs for 2 easy cases

12:30 –1:30 Lunch

1:30-4 Write reports, perform stats, CODIS eligibility, deduced profile sheets for 2 easy cases

Day 5

7:30 – 9:30 Chart STRs for SA case

9:30-11:30 Write reports, perform stats, CODIS eligibility, deduced profile sheets for SA case

11:30 – 12:30 Lunch

12 – 4 Complete peer review for analyst 3‟s cases (2 easy & 1 SA)


Analyst 3

Day 1

7:30- 9:30 Screen in screening room #2 the 2 easy cases & digest samples in extraction room

9:30-10:30 PBS wash for differential

10:30-11:30 Presumptive tests (Prepare slides, AP, look at slides & p30 if needed)

Let tech 4 know if the references for the sexual assault requires screening

11:30-12 Prepare E fraction for digest

12-2:00 Digest E fraction

12-1 Lunch

1-2 EZ1 two easy cases/coordinate with analyst 2 regarding EZ1 usage

2-3 Sperm wash



69

3 - O/N Digest S fraction

3- 4 EZ1 E fraction

-Flexible on screening/differential start times – analyst can follow schedule or start differential first

then screen easy cases during PBS soak of differential.

Day 2

7:30– 9 EZ1 all S fractions from both analyst‟s diff‟s

Remove extracts from freezer (2 easy cases & E fractions)

9 – 10:30 Prepare quant sample sheet

Prepare master mix & standards

Pipette plate & have put it on by 10:30 (plate should be finished by 12:15)

10:30 – 11 Process peer review

Screening notes and extraction protocols for analyst 1 (2 hard cases)

Screening notes and extraction protocol for tech 4/analyst 2 (references)

(If time crunch, can give 1 hard case paperwork for review to analyst 2 and/or give reference

paperwork for review to analyst 1)

11 – 11:30 Make labels for amp tubes & put labels on tubes/prepare hood & UV hood

Amp all samples in both systems (PP & CO) until implementation of Identifier Plus


11:30 -12:30 Lunch

12:30 –1 Retrieve quant data & print. Put all SP numbers for yourself on 1 pink sheet. Hand write in the EB




1:30- 2 Process peer review analyst 1‟s quant and amp protocols

2-4 Amp samples (Clean out Amp hood after finished amping)

Day 3

7:30 – 8:30 Create template for samples going onto 3130-3

8:30 – 9:30 Prepare master mix, pipette samples onto plate & load plate


manager




70

11:30 – 12:30 Lunch


3:30 - 4 Review data and do re-injects

Day 4

7:30-10:30 Evaluate data & print data for all cases (1 printer per analyst)

10:30- 12:30 Chart STRs for 2 easy cases

12:30 –1:30 Lunch

1:30-4 Write reports, perform stats, CODIS eligibility, deduced profile sheets for 2 easy cases

Day 5

7:30 – 9:30 Chart STRs for SA case

9:30-11:30 Write reports, perform stats, CODIS eligibility, deduced profile sheets for SA case

11:30 – 12:30 Lunch

12 – 4 Complete peer review for analyst 1‟s cases (2 hard cases)


Tech Review

Batch goes to Tech review & case goes back to analyst for any corrections. The goal is to have the batch of 8 tech

reviewed & corrected by the end of day. Time for corrections in the process is still being worked out.

The tech reviewer cycling out the process as well as a tech reviewer who is on their day 3 (after putting 3130 run

on) would be able to tech review. Total tech review time = 12.5 hours for 8 cases. That‟s 1.5 hours a case.

Admin Review

8 cases a day and 4 admin reviewers = 2 admin reviews per admin reviewer per day

The goal is to have the batch of 8 admin reviewed & corrected by the end of day.

Table 7: Work Instructions for each of the three analysts on the laboratory processing team.



71

During the pilot study, a number of modifications were made to immediately address the issues that were

encountered. At first, the scientists had difficulty adjusting to the rigorous schedule. The batch size was decreased

from 10 cases to 8 cases. The number was moved back to 10 cases as the scientists got proficient at the new way

of doing business. The screening of references was moved from Day 2 to Day 1 because it was learned that Day 2

was the most rushed of all the days in the schedule. In Lean Six Sigma terms, this is called level loading. Finally,

peer review was incorporated into the process, eliminating a bottleneck that existed in the original process map.

Over a dozen other improvements made during this phase. For instance, lab processes and equipment were

relocated to reduce motion waste; the concept of 5S (sort, straighten, shine, standardize and sustain) was

implemented at the workstations so that every workstation was identical in layout and cleanliness to every other

workstation; barcodes were printed to replace manual tube labeling; laboratory doors were removed to ease

movement to and from lab spaces; unnecessary procedural steps were removed from the Standard Operating

Procedures; a master schedule was implemented so that every scientists knew exactly what they would be doing

today and three weeks into the future; and correction flags in case folders were made much more consistent from

scientist to scientist.

In the Define Phase, the transportation and motion of the DNA process for a sexual assault case was measured

(see Figure 10 above). After the laboratory underwent the 5S process and a few other improvements, the

transportation and motion of processing a sexual assault was measured again. Transportation and motion of a

sexual assault case decreased by nearly one mile.



72

The new current state is now approximately 7879 feet, or about 1.5 miles. See map below:

Figure 27: New process spaghetti map for a sexual assault case (7879 feet)



73

Control Phase

The last phase of DMAIC is the Control Phase. The processes were controlled to ensure they continued to work

well, produce desired output results, and maintain quality levels. The control phase enabled the laboratory to

continually monitor its outputs and to adjust its operation when the data clearly indicates or when the customer‟s

requirements change.

The Control Phase puts in place a Management System to maintain the process. Without this, the new process and

improvements may revert to its previous state, undermining the gains achieved and making the progress for naught.

The question is: “How do we prevent backsliding?” The way to prevent a boulder that you have pushed up hill from

rolling backwards is to put a wedge behind it. The Control Phase wedge has several components. One of the most

important, of which, is a dashboard to look at process measures and performance measures. These measures, if

out of specification, will result in action to return them to specification. Positive behaviors are reinforced by the

dashboard.

Another purpose of the Control Phase is the creation of, and measurement against, a production schedule. The

production schedule sets the employees performance expectations. Daily production meetings occur to report on

progress and obstacles, if they exist. Further, the teams report on performance and the implementation of Leader

Standard Work through the “Gemba Walk”. Gemba is the Japanese word for “actual place, or place where the real

action occurs.” Coincidently, Japanese detectives refer to a crime scene as the Gemba. A Gemba walk occurs

when the leadership team walks through each area on a daily basis reviewing performance, identifying

opportunities and ensuring that each team is resolving their issues.

To sustain the improvement measures along with appropriate leadership behaviors is referred to as Leader

Standard Work. Through Leader Standard Work, employees are accountable for their process. Instead of

employees presenting problems to management for resolution, the employee makes recommendations and takes

ownership of resolving the issue. This process is known as CAPA (Corrective Action Preventive Action).



74

Statistical Results

While the grant was applied for and awarded in 2008; the efficiency consultant project started in April of 2010 and

ended in September 2010. Therefore, several data points regarding turnaround time, number of CODIS hits,

backlog and productivity will be provided to give the reader a good understanding of the DNA unit from 2006 to

today.

Turn-around-Time: The goal of the project was to cut the DNA Request turnaround time (TAT) in half, from 258

days (TAT in May 2008 at the time of grant application) to 129 days. While the metrics are calculated from the

receipt of the request to reporting. The scope of the project focused specifically on the TAT as measured from case

assignment to release.

Figure 28: DNA Request TAT. The red bar indicates the goal of 129 days. During the pilot project, the TAT for pilot cases was 22

days.

GOAL = 129 days



75

Number of CODIS hits: The number of CODIS hits achieved is a measure of the effectiveness of the casework

laboratory and the CODIS database to assist in the solving of no-suspect crimes. As can be observed in Figure 29,

the number of CODIS hits obtained by the State of Louisiana has increased substantially since May 2008. This

trend will undoubtedly continue as the backlog is eliminated and the productivity of the laboratory is increased.

Figure 29: This figure displays the number of CODIS hits obtained for the previous 12 months. As the number of CODIS hits

increases, so does the number of no-suspect cases that are potentially solved. This is one performance metric that is an indirect

byproduct of laboratory productivity.

GOAL > 314 hits



76

Backlog: Forensic DNA laboratories define case backlog slightly differently. The LSPCL defines backlog as DNA

requests that have been received but not reported. It does not include “pending” cases. Cases are “pending” if

evidence has been submitted, but the submitting agency has not provided enough information to begin working it.

In May of 2008, at the time of the grant application, the backlog reached a high of 1700 requests. The backlog

number was decreased through the use of outsourcing to private DNA laboratories and by cancelling cases as

directed by the submitting agencies or prosecutors. The rear graph includes the outsourced cases and the

internally analyzed cases. The outsourced cases required data review, a report written, technical review and

administrative review. See Figure 30. The front graph is internal backlog only. See Figure 30.

Figure 30: DNA Request backlog. Total Backlog includes outsourced cases. Internal Backlog does not.

While the outsourcing efforts affected the overall backlog, it did not increase the efficiency or productivity of the

internal operations. It wasn‟t until the LSS project began that the internal backlog began to show improvement.

GOAL = 850 requests

GOAL = 850 requests



77

Productivity: The final measure of the success of the efficiency project is the productivity of the LSPCL forensic

DNA unit. The entire Lean Six Sigma project was focused around increasing the flow through the laboratory. The

solution was that four teams of three DNA Analysts will process approximately 75 samples (roughly 10 cases) per

batch. This translates to 40 cases per week throughput (or 160 cases/month). Currently, LSPCL experiences a

case submission rate of approximately 110-125 requests/month. The capacity of the laboratory will accommodate

the current level of submissions and allow for 28% increase with current staffing levels and equipment capacity.

Figure 31: DNA Requests Completed per month.

GOAL = 100 requests/month



78

Figure 32: Throughput in relation to Backlog. In 2011 throughput exceeds backlog. LSPCL will redefine “Backlog” from

“requests received but not reported” to the number of “requests received but not reported after 30 days.”

Figure 33: This graph depicts the number of samples processed each month. The LSS project had the most dramatic effect on

this variable. Productivity increased from the mid-300 samples per month to over 979 samples per month, a 280% increase from

the beginning to the end of the grant period.



79

Figure 34: The DNA requests completed per month increased from 3.4 cases per analyst per month at the start of the LSS project

in May 2010 to over 10 cases per month at the end of the grant period.

Figure 35: This chart depicts the number of cases received (blue) versus the number of cases reported (red). The backlog grew

in 2008 and 2009 (more cases were received than reported). In 2010, that trend was reversed and the LSPCL essentially has no

backlog in 2011. These statistics include the outsourced cases, which were data reviewed, reports written, technically reviewed,

and administratively reviewed.



80

Figure 36: This figure shows the same trend. In 2010, LSPCL began to complete more cases internally than were assigned.

There was no outsourcing of LSPCL forensic cases after September of 2010.



81

Figure 37: The timeline shows performance metrics over the past 5 years. Phases of improvements are noted. While the decline in Backlog in 2009 is attributed to the outsourcing of 1000 cases (not efficiency grant funded), (which also led to the rise in CODIS hits), the most notable decrease in turn-around-time and increase in productivity occurred after March 2010.

Figure 38: This figure shows the improvements of several different metrics from the start of the efficiency project to the end of the Improve Phase in August 2010. Of particular note is the total queue time or time a case is being processed decreased from 181 days to 11.6 days. This exemplifies the “flow” that was created by the LSS Process. Secondly, the value added time, a measure of lean efficiency, increased from 2.7% to 37.9%.

Improve Efficiency

Outsource

Communication



82


As the LSS improved process began to develop the “bottlenecks” became apparent. A 3130 Genetic Analyzer was

replaced with a 3130XL to afford 16 capillaries instead of 4. The appropriate performance checks were

completed. This increased the capacity by 25%. This supported the analysis of larger batches of samples daily.

LSPCL extracts samples using Qiagen‟s EZ1 extraction robots. Reference samples and case samples are

extracted on separate robots. Currently, LSPCL does not extract more than one case at a time on the evidence

robot. This caused a bottleneck for the batch sizes that were being processed. An additional two EZ1 Advanced

XL robots were purchased to provide additional extraction capacity. While this has afforded the flow of samples to

meet the schedule designed, the LSPCL plans to purchase 3 more robots to add to the extraction step capacity.

Three thermocyclers and four thermomixers were purchased to prevent analysts having to “wait” for equipment.

LSPCL has a separate laboratory for the preparation and extraction of CODIS offender and confirmation samples.

The success and workflow of the CODIS laboratory indirectly affects the forensic analysis workflow, as they share

most equipment. To increase capacity of the CODIS laboratories and afford the LSPCL to begin analyzing offender

samples in-house, LSPCL purchased a TECAN EVO 150 robot, using state funding. Previously, other grant

funding supported the validation of the TECAN robot for two samples types: FTA blood cards and the Bode buccal

collector, using Identifiler Direct, eliminating the quantitation step of analysis.

The bone extraction equipment and supplies purchased afforded LSPCL to update their bone extraction

protocol. Due to the backlog, LSPCL had ceased to perform bone sample analysis. The state has a progressive

missing persons program in Louisiana State University‟s Forensic Anthropology and Computer Enhancement

Services (FACES) Laboratory. The FACES lab has been outsourcing their DNA bone analysis to other laboratories

at a cost to the state. With the service once again available at LSPCL, these outsource funds can be redirected to

other projects.

In the past, when LSPCL received evidence that was wet and needed to dry before screening, it was quarantined in

a screening lab, with no other casework being performed until it could be processed. With the LSS rearrangement

of lab work spaces, all three screening labs are needed continuously for the workflow to meet the schedule. LSPCL

purchased two evidence drying cabinets to support this need. They have already been used on many occasions

and have artificially created more lab space for the unit.



83

The effect of these equipment purchases to increase capacity are most readily seen in the data for the number of

samples analyzed each month and the number of DNA requests completed each month, as reported in the LSS

results section above. Because there were additional DNA analysts and technicians hired during the timeline of the

LSS project, data on the number of samples analyzed per analyst per month should be reviewed.

Figure 39: The average number of samples extracted and processed per analyst per month. The quarter showing a decrease at

the conclusion of the LSS project was due to two experienced analysts leaving for other employment. New analysts were hired,

but they were in training.

Overall, the LSS project resulted in the two-fold increase in the number of samples processed per analyst per

month.


The iDashboard software was purchased and installed. The onsite training was conducted, along with report

design. A team of DNA analysts and management, Crime Lab management, and the Data Department staff

learned the software and developed the “views” needed to link the Justice Trax LIMS system or any excel

spreadsheets to the reports. Three large monitors were purchased and mounted in the hallways and administrative

areas of the DNA Unit. They are being connected with network wiring and then they will be broadcasting the

reports developed in a cyclical presentation. The software affords a wealth of information, with drill down ability, in

visually pleasing graphics. The design of the screens was moderately easy, but the creation of the views required



84

computer programming assistance. LSPCL anticipates the visual presentations being a part of the daily DNA

production meetings within the next few weeks.

Figure 40: Sample dashboards created for the monitoring of work in progress by milestone and priority (above) and for

monitoring requests completed, weekly TATs, and weekly Backlog status (below) using the IDashboard product.



85



Qiagility Validation

Three Qiagen Qiagilities were purchased (using other grant funds). The intention was for one to be used for set-up

for Quantitation; one for set-up of Amplification, and one for set-up for genetic analysis. Applied Biosystems was

hired to perform the validation of two of the three robots: quantitation and amplification. The validation for

genetic analysis set-up was funded by another grant. The validations were performed. Validation studies results

were completed and reviewed. The implementation is pending. The validation to allow the conversion from

Profiler/Cofiler to Identifiler Plus, as well as the conversion to amplification in plates instead of tubes, was a higher

priority and thus has delayed implementation of these two robots. It is anticipated that they will be brought online

within the next three months. The Qiagility for the set-up of genetic analysis was validated as part of another grant

project. It has doubled the number of samples that can be run by the CODIS staff and the same effect is expected

for the forensic unit.

Prepfiler Validation

Additional validation studies were needed for the extraction of non-FTA blood cards and buccal swabs,

using the TECAN and Qiagility liquid handling systems, to be able to process them on the robot using the

Prepfiler extraction kit and the Identifiler Direct amplification kit. The efficiency grant funded this additional

validation with Applied Biosystems. LSPCL will be able to perform all extractions for confirmations and offender

testing in-house. The validation studies were performed, reviewed, approved, and a teachback was delivered.

LSPCL has implemented the in-house analysis of the prior validation for the first two sample types, the FTA blood

card and the Bode collector, and is now performing convicted offender samples in-house. The second phase for

the remaining two sample types will follow. The CODIS staff are in the process of updating procedures for this

protocol and implementation is anticipated in July.


LSPCL purchased 7 barcode scanners to equip lab workstations with barcoding capability. A Datamax barcode

printer, used to print barcodes from the Justice Trax LIMS system was also purchased. Two desktop scanners

were provided for the clerical staff handling purchasing tasks for the DNA Unit and the Crime Lab. This enabled



86

them to scan documents related to the purchase and payment of supplies for electronic attachment in the new

Sharepoint workflow program. A desktop printer was purchased for CODIS to facilitate the printing of fingerprint

records for juvenile offenders. Previously these were only able to be printed in another department, which was 50

feet away. This printer placement reduced the transportation in this process and expedited the accessioning and

confirmation steps of the CODIS process. All other equipment needed when making LSS improvements (such as

tube label printers, refrigerator/freezers, etc) were purchased, as needed, using other available funding through the

state and other grants.



The results of the formation of the Business Unit are not as easily quantified as the other improvements. The

biggest impact has been demonstrated by the results of the Purchasing LSS project, which showed a decrease in

DNA staff time spent on purchasing activities alone of 68%. Other activities that were previously the responsibility

of the DNA Forensic Unit, that are now the responsibility of the Business Unit, include the following:

Budget planning

Includes review of budget authority and management of appropriated funds, both state and grant,

and make recommendations for purchase requests and projects based on available funding.

Purchasing tasks

Includes management of on-site stores for office supplies and lab consumables, management of

blanket orders for supplies and services, locating vendors to supply requested items, obtain

multiple quotes for best pricing, vendor negotiation, obtain necessary documents for submission,

complete purchasing process, coordinate delivery of purchase, verify receipt and process invoice

requests.

Contract execution

Includes contract development, obtaining signatures, tracking progress of approvals, verification of

receipt of services or completion of projects, and processing invoice requests.

Grant management

Includes grants application and grant management documentation through the GMS system, as

well as the administration of all sub-grantees. DNA Forensic is only responsible for performance

metric submission twice a year.



87

The Business Unit is comprised of a Crime Lab Manager, who also manages another technical area, and two

Administrative staff members. Since February 2010, the Business Unit currently serves these functions, as well as

payroll and administrative support, for the entire Crime Lab.

2.3.3.2 LSS Consultant- Purchasing of DNA Supplies The following outlines the discussion on the results of the LSS project focused on improving the DNA Purchasing

Process workflow:


Schedule

Discussion of DMAIC

Define

Project Charter

Current State

Process Map

SIPOC

Measure

Purchase Data- type and milestone TATs

Employee Time Survey

Analyze

Hypothesis Testing

Improve

Approval chain

Lacarte

Sharepoint

On-site stores

Vendor Management

Control

Data Collection

On-site store management

Blanket orders

Vendor management

Statistical Results


Unexpected Benefits

Lessons Learned




88

DNA Purchasing LSS Project

A second LSS project was conducted from February 9 to May 11, 2011 to increase the efficiency of the DNA supply

and services procurement processes. Four on-site visits were conducted by the CTQ Consultant over the course of

3 months to complete the LSS project and certify a member of the LSPCL team as a LSS Black Belt Engineer.

Steps in the purchasing process were changed or eliminated to create an easier, faster, better quality process. The

net result was that the DNA scientists were removed from the task of securing supplies and services and the time to

delivery was greatly reduced. All project goals were met.

Schedule

Visit #1 2/9/11 Project Kickoff

Visit #2 2/24/11 Define, Measure, Analyze (DMA) Phases completed and Tollgated

Visit #3 3/21/11 Improve Phase completed and Tollgated

Visit #4 5/09/11 Control Phase completed and Tollgated

5/12/11 Final Presentation and Certification Presentation

Discussion of DMAIC

DMAIC represents an acronym for the 5 phases of the LSS process that leads the team to reach the goals defined.

D- Define, M- Measure, A- Analyze, I- Improve, and C- Control. A tollgate presentation is conducted at the

conclusion of the phases to review the conclusions, seek guidance on administrative decisions that need to be

made, and to garner support to move to the next phase. Due to the limited time of this project, the DMA phases

were done together, with the Improve and Control phases following later. The sections below describe the activities

that were included in the work of each phase. During each LSS project, there are a multitude of tools that can be

utilized in gathering data, as well as in analyzing data. Each project has its own unique characteristics and data

sets. The data determines what tools are appropriate to use in evaluation of the data. The reader will notice that

many, but not all, of the tools used in the DNA Forensic LSS project are the same. There are some tools used in

this project, that were not used in the previous project as well.



89

Define Phase

The Define Phase is discussed earlier in the DNA Forensic LSS Project. The concept and purpose is the same for

both projects. That is, to define the project, make a business case for why the project is needed, articulate what the

customer needs are that the project needs to ensure is provided, and to evaluate the potential for success of the

project if engaged.

Project Charter

As the project is initiated a Project Charter was completed to determine scope, team members, Executive

Stakeholders, timelines and project purpose and goals.

Figure 41: DNA Purchasing LSS Project Charter defined the problem, the scope and goals of the project.

Current State

The current state of purchasing involves three segments of processing in this order:

Activities and approvals that occur at LSPCL

Approvals that occur externally as part of LSP, but outside of LSPCL

Activities and approvals that occur in the Purchasing Department



90

To measure the current state, data was collected on the number and type of purchase that were involved in

purchasing activities from the beginning of the LSPCL fiscal year, July 2010, through January 2011 for a total of 207

purchasing events. Purchase types were defined by the process used in making the purchase as defined below:

Lacarte (LC) – The state‟s VISA charge card used for rapid purchases not to exceed $1000 per

purchase. Designated cardholders within the laboratory had a monthly limit of $5000 of purchases.

Purchases for office supplies up to $100 could be made without approval, but all other charges

must be approved at the LSPCL internally before purchase. No external approvals or Purchasing

Dept. activities are required.

Standing Order/Blanket Order (BO) – This is the purchase type used to obtain one purchase order

to be used during the fiscal year in increments. The price is secured at the beginning of the year,

either through the bid process, state contract rates, or sole source approval. The funds are

encumbered at the beginning of the year, but partial payments are not made until the partial order

of supplies are received. The initial process mimics a Purchase Order in process steps, ISIS entry,

and required approvals.

Purchase Order (PO) – This purchase type is used for those items not able to be purchased by

Lacarte. Multiple quotes and bid processes are required for purchases exceeding certain dollar

amounts. This requires all levels of approval and is entered into the state‟s purchasing software

program, ISIS.The purchase order process is the same for Blanket Orders as it is for Purchase

Orders and is the process that contributes to the long cycle time.

Initial sampling showed the process cycle times as follows:

Figure 42: DNA Purchasing TATs by phase



91

Current processes meant that the purchase order process would take an average of 39 workdays. However, there

was such variability in the process that, to have a 95% confidence level that a supply or service could be procured,

one would have to allow 92 workdays.

Figure 43: Variability of the Purchasing

process in its current state.

The 3 phases involved in obtaining a purchase order are depicted in the following Pareto chart, showing the longest

delay in processing within the internal activities and approvals performed at the LSPCL.

Figure 44: Pareto Chart of TAT by phase of the process showing the Internal process took the most time of the cycle.



92

By using the Key Process Input (KPI) distribution of data, a review of the 25% performance level revealed that the

process was capable, but had too much variation to meet targets. The conclusion was that the process needs

improvement rather than redesign.

Figure 45: KPI distribution of initial sampling of purchasing data

Process Map

The team detailed all of the steps within the purchasing process, using “sticky notes” which could be moved as new

steps were remembered or detailed. This visual map was then converted to a “should be” process map, both on

the butcher paper and electronically.

Photograph 5: Photograph of the “As is” process map for purchasing supplies or services.



93

Figure 46: High Level, Level 1, “As is” process map for purchasing supplies or services, showing 7 basic steps to processing a

purchase from “Identify Need” to “Pay & Close.”

Process cycle times revealed that the activities that occur at the LSPCL took over half of the entire purchase cycle

time.

Figure 47: Level 2 “As is” process map for purchasing supplies or services.



94

After the process was recorded in a visual way, the steps of the process could be more easily evaluated.

A second project was spawned as a result of this work. The Purchasing Department also engaged in a LSS

project, under the leadership of one of the members of the DNA Purchasing LSS Team. Process mapping and LSS

activities began in that department as well. Their project is not discussed here, but is worthy to mention as it

speaks to the contagious nature of the LSS methodology.

One of the key elements of LSS is intently listening to the customer. By recording the voice of the customer the

process can be designed to ensure quality and delight the customer.

Figure 48: Voice of the Customer analysis.

Stakeholders are individuals invited to participate in the project at a high level, advisory capacity. Stakeholders for

this project were the Undersecretary of the Department of Public Safety Services (Corporate Financial Officer), the

Director of the Crime Lab, and the Support Major that oversees the Crime Lab at an organizational and

administrative level. By involving and seeking guidance at the tollgates of these high level executives,

improvements are more likely to be permitted, supported, and sustained after the project is complete. It gives a



95

level of support that ensures cooperation at all levels of the organization and gives credibility to the project. It was

essential to some of the changes that were implemented within this project.

Conducting a Stakeholder‟s Analysis in the DEFINE phase also reveals what the current levels of support are and

potential obstacles or concerns that need to be addressed in the planning stages.

Figure 49: Stakeholder analysis

The only issue that was of concern, rated as a Stakeholder Risk Rating of 3, was the vendor protocol inflexibility.

Due to state purchasing regulations, there was concern that some improvements would be prohibited by policies

that would not be able to be changed by the LSS team or Stakeholders. It was decided that sampling key vendors

to get more information would likely allow the issues to be overcome while still staying in compliance with state

regulations.



96

SIPOC

The SIPOC analysis affords the team the ability to review the inputs and outputs of the process. The suppliers are

key to the cycle, as well as the customers who receive the outputs. This exercise allows the team to see how their

day to day activities fit with those that they interact with to maximize the efficiencies of those interactions.

Figure 50: SIPOC Analysis and Map

Measure Phase

Purchase Data- type and milestone TATs

Data was collected from the beginning of the current fiscal year (July 1, 2010) to present (through January 2011) to

understand the types of purchases made, the amount of money used in purchasing these items, the turn-around-

time of the various milestones. The purchase type dictates the milestones, so the focus was on the longest

process, the purchase order process. Because Lacarte (credit card) purchases only require in lab approval, they

are a shorter process and do not require the external chain-of-command approval steps or the Purchasing



97

Department‟s involvement. Purchase orders also must be entered and tracked with the state‟s purchasing

software, known as ISIS. With restricted use and predetermined required approval steps, this was incorporated into

the milestone turn-around-times.

The milestones were as follows:

Request to ISIS Entry

ISIS Entry to ISIS Internal Approval

Internal ISIS Approval to External ISIS Approval

External ISIS Approval to Purchase Order Issue

Purchase Order Issue to Receipt of Goods

Receipt of Goods to Payment and Close

Larger timeframes were also reviewed, such as from request to PO issue, which incorporates all three phases, but

excludes the delivery of goods. After a great deal of discussion as to whether the scope of the project should

include delivery of goods, as the Crime Lab has little control on the delivery by a vendor, it was decided to measure

the results both ways, but that it would be incorporated into the Improve Phase as it directly affects how long the

DNA Analyst has to wait for their supply and it affects whether the DNA Analyst has to spend time inquiring as to

the whereabouts of the supply.

Likewise, the step from receipt to payment is also vendor dependent, with the issuing of invoices often taking

several contact attempts by the Crime Lab to get an invoice from the vendor to pay. Again, it was decided to

include this step in the improvements, as it is a function of the overall process and is an investment of staff time if it

is not efficient.



98

Data showed that 207 purchasing events occurred from July 2010 through January 2011, with the following

characteristics:

Purchasing

type

# of events # Office

Supplies

# < $5000 # >=$5000

Lacarte 155 115 155 0

Purchase Order 52 2 29 23

Table 8: Purchasing Data overview

The milestone turn-around times were as follows:

Milestone TAT (days)

“as is”

TAT

“should be”

Request to ISIS Entry 17.37 2

ISIS Entry to ISIS Internal Approval 3.88 1

Internal ISIS Approval to External ISIS Approval 10.8 0

External ISIS Approval to Purchase Order Issue 9.51 1

Purchase Order Issue to Receipt of Goods 24.43 20

Receipt of Goods to Payment and Close 21.37 2

87.36 26

Table 9: Milestone TATs for a Purchase Order

Once the data was tabulated, the team began to analyze the data and formulate the “Should Be” process map and

associated turn-around-times. The last column represents the “should be” TATs. The initial target was extended to

50 days, to allow for practical delays. Additionally the Project Charter was updated to specify more objectively, the

project goals.



99

Figure 51: “Should be” Process Map. Notice the eliminated steps that occurred during streamlining the processes.

GOAL Unit of measure TARGET

Decrease TAT: Request-PO days 10

Decrease TAT: Request-payment days 50

Change purchase type mix in order of ease of process:

Onsite store/ Lacarte/ blanket order/ PO % of purchases 50/ 35/ 10/ 5

Reduce staff time spent on purchasing (DNA/Crime Lab) hours/ week 5/ 40

Figure 52: DNA Purchasing Project Goals

Employee Time Survey

Another measurement that was taken was a survey of Crime Lab employees, both DNA and non-DNA areas, for

the time that they spent each week on purchasing tasks. This included any shopping vendors, obtaining quote, and

even checking on the progress of purchases.

The results indicated that 21.75 hours a week of DNA staff time was being spent on purchasing activities. While

this was a self reported estimate, it did verify what the DNA management felt was truly the case. Additionally, the



100

rest of the Crime Lab was surveyed and the entire Crime Lab reported 137.80 hours per week being spent on

purchasing tasks. The potential savings in salary, if this were eliminated, was projected to be upwards of $32,000

for DNA and $175,000 for the entire Crime Lab. The salary estimates were rough and only represented a sampling,

but the message was clear. A great deal of staff resources were being used on marshalling the purchase of

supplies and services, only to have the process take approximately 40 business days (8 weeks) to occur.

Figure 53: Staff Survey of Time Spent on Purchasing Activities

Analyze Phase

The Analyze Phase involved several evaluations. The statistical data showed that the process had the potential to

be improved and that redesign was not necessary.

Hypothesis Testing

By reviewing the purchase data, it was proposed to change the “mix” of the purchase types and the impact of that

change was analyzed. Several questions were asked:

What % of the purchases could be converted to Blanket Orders?

o Answer= 75%

What % of the purchases could be “Lacarted” if the limit were raised from $1000 to $5000 per purchase?

o Answer =18.5%

With these two improvements, what % of the purchases would still require a Purchase Order to be issued?

o Answer = 6.5%

What would be the resulting % of the purchase “mix” between Lacarte, Blanket Order, and Purchase

Order?

o 75% Blanket Orders/ 18.5% Lacarte/ 6.5% Purchase Order



101

The current purchase process had a Sigma Value of 2.67. By implementing the improved approach designed by

the Project Team was expected to have a Sigma Value of 4.70 and represented a process yield improvement of

90.96%. The weighted average TAT – including Vendor Fulfillment (which remained out of LSPCL direct control)

would be 9.05 days, an improvement of 30 days. Crime Lab-wide the calculations projected an improvement of

79.6% in TAT by changing the purchase mix, increasing the Lacarte limits, and creating an on-site office supply

store.

Within the past two years, office supplies no longer were being distributed at an organizational level. Departments,

like the Crime Lab, had to develop their own systems for purchasing their own office supply items. Because so

many Lacarte purchases represented trips to office supply, creating an in-house supply closet/store was suggested.

Figure 54: Projected TATs based on suggested changes. Improvement was projected to be 79.6% labwide, 76.7% for Forensic

DNA and 83.5% for CODIS DNA.



102

Improve Phase

Based on the analysis of the data, the following improvements were accomplished:

1. Eliminating non-value added steps in the current process

• Eliminated External Chain of Command Approval

• Increased Purchase Limits on LaCarte

2. Developing an automated „conveyor‟ system that moves the process at the desired tact time

• SHAREPOINT

3. Managing vendor relationships to deliver optimal TAT, including strategic use of blanket orders, on-

site stores and service level agreements (SLAs)

• Met with 9 different vendors to negotiate pricing and SLA

• On-Site stores for Lab Consumables and Office Supplies

4. Well defined „handshake‟ between Purchasing, Finance and Crime Lab Management team to

improve the feedback and information flow

• Routine monthly meetings currently between Finance and Crime Lab re: budget/spending

• More work to do to pass information to Crime Lab Management team

More discussion on the improvements follows:

1. Eliminating non-value added steps in the current process

• Eliminated External Chain of Command Approval

• Increased Purchase Limits on LaCarte

The External Approval phase of the purchase process was eliminated. It was determined that the chain-of-

command relied on the judgement of the Director of the Crime Lab on determining whether a purchase was needed

and moreover, if there was budget in place to support the purchase. There were no cases where a purchase had



103

been denied. This required a change be made to ISIS to no longer require those steps. This eliminated 3

approvals within the ISIS approval process and totally eliminated phase 2 of the process.

The Lacarte limits were increased to $5000 for a single purchase, with a monthly limit of $20,000. Lacarte card

holders at the Crime Lab included several managers and supervisors. These cardholders were left in place at the

previous spending levels, in case of emergency purchasing needs. The Business Unit, comprised of a Crime Lab

Manager and two Administrative staff, were approved for the higher limit purchasing power. Approval was issued

from the Undersecretary‟s Office that the higher Lacarte limits would not require any additional approvals, but

management of the purchases would remain with the Director of the Crime Lab, with the intention that the Lacarte

would be used for supply and operational purchases. The $5000 did not exceed the level that the State Purchasing

regulations allowed for a purchase to be made without a bid process. After further research, it was learned that

several agencies across the state were utilizing this additional limit level and that the risk of misuse had not proven

to be a problem.

2. Developing an automated „conveyor‟ system that moves the process at the desired tact time

• SHAREPOINT

A Sharepoint workflow was developed by the Data Department to create a conveyor belt program that would allow

the request to be entered by a Supervisor, approved by the respective Manager, approved by the Captain or

designee, and forwarded to Purchasing. All steps triggered email notifications to the next person in the workflow,

as well as all documents could be attached electronically. All members of the Crime Lab could see the progress of

their requested purchases, with status updates as it moved through the process. This required six generations of

revisions meet the needs of the process. The team worked closely with Data to make changes quickly.



104

Figure 55: The Sharepoint workflow as communicated between the LSS Team and Data.

Training was a key factor in transitioning to the new electronic tracking system. Additionally, communication about

the use of, training, implementation, and revisions coming, was crucial. Communication Briefs and emails were

issued about Sharepoint, as well as the on-site stores. Change was happening so quickly, it was important to

explain the goals, changes, and request feedback.

A data collection plan was designed to gather the outputs of the changes made during the pilot. Turn-around-times

were calculated based on information manually extracted from the Sharepoint fields. The Data department has

since developed reports that being used in the Control Phase.



105

Figure 56: Communication between the LSS Team and the Crime Lab Management and Staff was crucial.

The system now drives the activities of the Business Unit and provides complete visibility to all purchasing activities.

This reduced the number of emails and correspondence that was needed between units and the Business Unit, as

well as between the Crime Lab and the Purchasing Department. ISIS still is required, but the Sharepoint workflow

requires that the requisition # be entered, which is a safety net to ensure that the purchase was entered into the

ISIS system.

Communication Brief 3.16.11

Lean Six Sigma Purchasing Improvement Project

Goal

The goal of this project is to provide the Crime Lab staff the tools they need to perform their

duties without delay and with as little involvement in procurement as possible. The focus is

directed on DNA procurement, with extrapolated benefits throughout the Crime Lab expected.

Performance Metrics

1. Decrease Purchasing Cycle time to

5 business days (1 week) from request to internal approval (ISIS entry)

10 business days (2 weeks) from request to Purchase Order issuance

30 days from request to receipt

40 days from request to payment to vendor

2. Change the mix of purchase types to

50% in-house store

35% Lacarte purchase

10% blanket order

5% purchase order

3. Reduce the time spent on purchasing activities by 75%. Goal is reduce participation to 40 hrs per

week, Crime Lab wide. 35 hrs/wk Criminalistics and 5 hrs/wk DNA.

Interesting Data (July 2010 thru Feb 2011)

Did you know that we spend 3.445 FTEs on purchasing activities?

Did you know that we made 154 trips for Office Supplies?

Did you know that of the 206 purchase orders we processed, if we institute our recommended improvements, we

would only have needed 11 PO’s?

Improvements Focus Points

Streamline Purchase Process

Agency Best Practices

Better Partner Communication

Vendor Management



106

Figure 57: Production model screen shot of Purchasing Sharepoint.

3. Managing vendor relationships to deliver optimal TAT, including strategic use of blanket orders, on-site stores

and service level agreements (SLAs)

• Met with 9 different vendors to negotiate pricing and SLA

• On-Site stores for Lab Consumables and Office Supplies

Vendor meetings were held to review historical purchasing data and discuss discounts that could be offered.

Details, such as including the Purchase Order # on the exterior of the package, is an example of some of the

requests that we discussed. This enables the receptionist to notify the unit of the receipt of a purchase. In the past,

boxes may sit in the foyer several days while it is being determined where to deliver it. The PO # can be referenced

in Sharepoint and email notification is triggered when received. VWR and Fisher are the two vendors who maintain

state contracts for lab consumables. Both vendors offer blanket discounts, but upon discussions, it was realized

that the there was some additional discounting that could be applied to frequently ordered items, over and above

the state contract pricing. It was learned that while state contracts create an easier purchase approval route, they

do not yield the best pricing.



107

Discussions have been initiated to further explore additional discount arrangements that may be allowed through

the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO). While potential improvements have to be vetted

against state purchasing laws and regulations, it appears that some “hot list” pricing may be able to be applied that

could provide higher discounts to frequently used items. It was learned that, while many states are utilizing this

purchasing tool for lab consumable purchasing, Louisiana has not. While pricing was outside the scope of this

project, it did show that vendor management can lead to purchasing strategy education and potential savings. The

Business Unit plans to collaborate with the DPS Office of Management Finance to further research this

arrangement.

Besides pricing, vendor meetings led to bundling of reagents to reduce the number of purchased items. By

ordering in larger, bundled volumes, these sole source vendors were able to discount pricing even further.

The table below shows the vendor meetings that were held and the outcome of those meetings.

Table 10: Vendor impact

Through discussions with the vendors, it was also learned that the state contract vendors offer, at no additional

charge, a vendor management service. The management service is a third party company that makes weekly visits

to assess inventory, review usage, and restock, based on the predetermined minimum and maximum inventory

levels decided upon by the customer. Large industrial companies use this service to manage their huge inventory

of laboratory supplies. Likewise, the state contracted office supply vendor, when asked, agreed to do the same.



108

An on-site store was set up for office supplies, basing inventory on the items ordered within the current fiscal year.

The Business Unit opens the store three times a week for 30 minutes to allow all Crime Lab employees to pick up

supplies as needed. Eventually, the store will be unlocked for access at all times, but, for management purposes, it

was decided that initially the Business Unit would “host” the store only at certain times during the week. This gives

the staff an opportunity to learn which supplies are needed that are not in inventory, as well as which supplies seem

to be available in a version that doesn‟t quite work for the end user. An overhead announcement is made to notify

the Crime Lab that the store will be open. During the first 14 days that the office supply store was open, 178 visits

were logged and 105 different office supply items were issued. The store is resupplied using Lacarte purchases, as

with frequent replenishment the purchase amounts do not exceed the Lacarte $5000 limit.

An On-Site store was set up for the DNA Unit‟s lab consumables. The vendor supplied a computer, with inventory

management software, and barcode scanning equipment. A Business Process Consultant, an employee provided

by the vendor at no charge, met with the Business Unit and designed the best process for the on-site delivery of

supplies and resupply. The vendor provided training and set up the barcode labeling for all supplies in the

warehouse. To start, only the DNA Forensic Technicians retrieve supplies for the DNA Unit. If a DNA Analyst

needs a supply, and a Technician is not available, they merely write what they took on a wipe erase board and a

Business Unit staff member logs it in the system. Previously, the DNA Unit ordered the bulk of their lab

consumables on a quarterly basis. This led to storage issues and hoarding of supplies in some areas. An inventory

of $14,000, consisting of 34 different part numbers and 695 items was frequented 10 times during the 5 week pilot.

The useage averaged around $650 worth of supplies issued per week. This is expected to increase with time as

the overstocking in laboratories is used up. The on-site store concept has resulted in less inventory on hand and an

environment that provides what is needed, as it is needed, with no involvement of the DNA Analysts or Supervisors.

The vendor allows other vendor supplies to be stocked, up to 25% of the inventory. As this concept is expanded to

include the rest of the Crime Lab, we anticipate increased price discounting and a more centralized purchase

system, with little staff involvement.

In summary, the vendor relation building yielded more services for no extra charge, the opportunity to maximize

buying power, and education regarding mechanisms already in place to afford better pricing. Through the store

pilots, the lab was able to experience the benefits of managing less inventory while maintaining immediate access

to supplies, without the effort of counting and ordering. The stores concept will continue to replenished using the

Lacarte system. The rest of the Crime Lab is anxious to experience the convenience of the lab consumable store

and training is underway to acquaint staff with the system.



109

A staff survey revealed an 81% satisfaction rating with the stores. Additionally, all Crime Lab staff were asked the

following questions:

Has having the office supply store been beneficial for you to perform your job duties better/faster?

How much time would you estimate (per week) that it has saved you or cost you?

Are the days and times convenient?

Adjustments in how the store operates were made based on the feedback received from the comments.

4. Well defined „handshake‟ between Purchasing, Finance and Crime Lab Management team to improve the

feedback and information flow

• Routine monthly meetings currently between Finance and Crime Lab re: budget/spending

• More work to do to pass information to Crime Lab Management team

Monthly meetings involving the Chain-of-Command, the Finance team and the Business Unit has been very

beneficial in managing the funds that remained in the final months of the state fiscal year (ending June). It allowed

the Business Unit to provide feedback so that accurate projections could be entered and freed up budgeted money

for other uses, if it would otherwise not be used as projected. Additionally, coding errors were discovered which

attribute expenses to the various categories. This has downstream affect on how future budgets are allocated, so

making the current fiscal year expenditures was important. Communication Briefs and emails have been the mode

of communication thus far, but more formal monthly budget reports with only practical, pertinent data will be

designed and delivered to the managers of the respective units going forward.



110

Control

Data Collection

The Data Collection plan is a guide that provides a tool to tally the results and measure them against the objective

goals established. The following template was designed to assist LSPCL in continuing to gather and evaluate data:

Figure 58: Data Collection Plan

# BASELINE TARGET TARGET % AFTER AFTER %

1

1A ID NEED TO ISIS ENTRY 17.37 4 1

1B ISIS ENTRY TO ISIS APPROVAL 3.9 1 1

1CISIS INTERNAL TO ISIS EXTERNAL

APPROVAL10.8 0 0

1D ISIS APPROVAL TO PO DATE 9.5 5 8*

1E PO REQUEST DATE TO PO ISSUE DATE 39.7 10 10

1F PO ISSUE TO RECEIPT OF ORDER 24.4 20 22

1G RECEIPT TO PO PAID 21.3 10 11

126.97 50 45

2

2A BLANKET ORDER 2 21 10.194% 2 0.735%

2B LACARTE 155 69 33.495% 63 23.162%

2C ONSITE STORE 0 105 50.971% 201 73.897%

Office Supply 178 people visited over 14 days open

Lab Consummables (?) max 23 visits

2D PURCHASE ORDER 49 11 5.340% 5 1.838%

OTHER 0 0 0 1 0.368%

206 206 100.000% 272 100.000%

3

3A CRIME LAB 137.8 35 58.05 58.05

3B DNA 21.75 5 6.93 6.93

159.55 40 64.98 64.98

CRIME LAB FTE 3.54 0.875 1.45 1.45

DNA FTE 0.54 0.125 0.17 0.17

CRIME LAB $ $184,056 $72,589 $72,589

DNA FTE $ $37,275 $11,248 $11,248

CRIME LAB $ SAVINGS $111,467

DNA $ SAVINGS $26,027

Adoption (85 of 94 lack adoption) 90.43% 90.43%

4

4A OFFICE SUPPLIES N Y Y All

4B DNA CONSUMABLES N Y Y DNA

4C CRIMINALISTICS CONSUMABLES N N N

5

5A PRICE NEGOTIATED SAVINGS $67,917.61

5B FULFILLMENT CYCLE TIME 24.4 20 22

5C DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

6

6A MANAGEMENT TEAM - PROJECT

6B MANAGEMENT TEAM - CRIME LAB

6C BLANKET ORDER STAGING

7

7A CRIMINALISTICS

7B DNA

7C ADMIN

MANUAL TRACKING

DATA ANALYSIS/PURCHASE BEHAVIORS

FINANCIAL/BUDGET PLANNING ROUTINES

ADOPTION

ELEMENT

MANUAL TRACKING/BLANKET ORDERS, STORESVENDOR RELATIONS

ON-SITE STORES

SHAREPOINT

SHAREPOINT & ISIS

SURVEY PRE/POST

ACTUAL (Y/N) & DATA ANALYSIS, STORE USAGE BY DEPT

PROCESS CYCLE TIME

PURCHASE TYPE MIX

TIME SPENT ON PURCHASING (HRS PER WK)



111

Currently a few Sharepoint reports have been developed which allow the monitoring of the # of purchases, type of

purchase, # completed and $ amounts associated with all. The milestone turn-around-time data report is still being

developed. Additionally, a custom dashboard is being developed using the iDashboard software to pull current data

from Sharepoint, refreshing the data daily. The initial design is below:

Figure 59: Dashboard visually depicting the purchase mix and current TATs for the various Purchase Order milestones.

On-site store management

With the help of the vendors and the inventory management processes, the stores have required little to no time to

manage. Future activities include monitoring the cost of products supplied, working to lower cost without

compromising quality; acquiring more supplies in the lab consumable store; expanding the units that use the lab

store; and having stores open at all times without the need for the Business Unit staff to host the activities. Reports

from the barcoding software will enable the Business Unit to manage the inventory and adjust minimum and

maximum stocking levels once historical data is available. As the vendor allows other vendor products to be

stocked, the inventory will be expanded to the commonly used supplies, even those not supplied by the current

VWR vendor. The reports will make the annual blanket ordering projections much more accurate and easier to

project.

Blanket orders

One of the improvement focus points, in changing the purchase mix, was to develop as many Blanket Orders as

possible at the beginning of the new fiscal year. Blanket (or Standing) Orders follow the same approval process as

a Purchase Order; however, once the money is encumbered, it can be ordered from in increments, only being

charged for the portion of the order that was requested. This had been done with a couple of sole source vendors

in the past, but the concept was evaluated throughout the DNA Unit and the rest of the Crime Lab. There were

services in various units that could be consolidated into one order or one vendor, where there had been many,



112

which ultimately resulted in additional savings. A plan was developed to develop as many Blanket Orders as

possible at the beginning of the fiscal year. It was determined that 14 orders could be developed. At this time 10 of

the 14 have been submitted. These will continue to be monitored and adjusted as needed to meet the needs of the

units. The setup of a Blanket order requires vendor meetings where services are detailed, quotes obtained and

depending on the total value of the order, the prices are competitively bid.

Vendor management

LSPCL has become much more interactive with not just a few vendors, but with as many vendors as offer the

products used by the LSPCL. Communication has increased and additional services have been requested of

vendors that have not been asked before. These direct conversations will continue to be arranged, with additional

education on the state‟s purchasing arrangements with vendors that are already in place, but not utilized by the

LSPCL.

Statistical Results

The goals, target and results are given below. All goals were met, except in the area of staff time spent on

purchasing activities. The target was 5 hours/week for DNA and 40 hours/week for the entire Crime Lab. The

results were slightly higher, but showed a marked decrease from before the project. This is believed to be due, in

part, to the short pilot time. It took some time for staff behavior to change and to convert purchases to the new

process. There were still purchases that were pending when the pilot began, which continued to require staff time

to complete them.

During the pilot, LSPCL processed more purchase orders than blanket orders. This is because the project occurred

at the end of the fiscal year and most blanket orders are processed at the beginning of a fiscal year. However, the

results for the onsite stores exceeded the target, resulting in fewer Lacartes than targeted.



113

Table 11: DNA Purchasing LSS Project Goals, Target values and Results

Reduce Purchase Process Cycle Time

Cycle times were reduced. With a target of 10 workdays (2 weeks) from the time the need was identified until the

Purchase order was issued, the results averaged 3 days. The entire cycle time for a purchase to be completed was

an average of 7 days, far exceeding the 40 day target.

Table 12: Milestone TATs in workdays.

GOAL Unit of measure TARGET

RESULTS

Decrease TAT: Request-PO days 10

3

Decrease TAT: Request-payment days 40

7

Change purchase type mix- (in order of ease to process: Onsite store/ Lacarte/ Blanket order/ PO) % of purchases 50/ 35/ 10/ 5

73/ 24/ 1/ 2

Reduce staff time spent on purchasing (DNA/ Crime Lab) hours/ week 5/ 40 6.93/ 58.05



114

The graphs below show that, before the improvements were made, there was a 57.92% chance that the purchase

process cycle would be completed within 45 days from request to invoice payment. After the improvements, the

new system means that there is a 98.75% that the process will be completed within 45 days.

Figure 60: Improvement of Cycle Time predictability

Figure 61: Target, Pre and Post Cycle Time distributions.



115

The charts above show the distributions of the cycle times from request to payment. Initially the target was 50

days, which includes 10 days for the internal lab processing and issuance of the purchase order, 30 days for

fulfillment, and 10 days to pay and close. It was later adjusted to only allow 20 days for fulfillment and thus the

target was moved to 40 work days for the entire process.

Change the Purchase Type Mix As changing the purchase mix was a key objective, moving purchases to the easier processes, the following results

were observed during the pilot process.

Table 13: Purchase Type Mix Results

Figure 62 : Purchase Mix BEFORE LSS Figure 63: Purchase Mix TARGET of LSS

Order of Ease of Processing: Onsite Store > Lacarte > Blanket Order > Purchase Order

Figure 64: Purchase Mix AFTER LSS



116

Reduce the staff time spent on purchasing activities

Staff time was reduced in the DNA Unit, as well as across the Crime Lab. As there are 3 Business Unit members,

not entirely dedicated to purchasing alone, the target of 40 hours (spread across the 3 of them) was the goal.

Actual post improvement shows approximately 55 hours spent weekly. 5 hours for DNA and 40 hours total within

the Crime Lab wide was an ambitious target, but should be attainable as the process is perfected.

Tables 14-16: DNA and Crime Lab

Staff Time Spent on Purchasing

Before and After and Projected Savings.

Figure 65: Time Spent on Purchasing

Before, Target and After LSS

.

The Team conducted a survey of CL employees to assess the adoption rate using self reported data on reported

time spent on Purchasing activities.

94 employees sampled

85 (90.43%) spending appropriate time on Purchasing activities

9 (9.57%) report significant time spent (outliers) on Purchasing activities. This is believed to be due to

special types of purchases made (keys copied) and the fact that some personalities take longer than the

pilot to adopt and consistently change their behavior.



117


Unintended Benefits & Consequences

Benefits

• LSPCL realized financial and process impact in consolidating purchases between departments.

• LSPCL realized additional quality, routine maintenance , increased technology opportunities through vendor discussions.

• The visibility of Sharepoint seemed to reduce unnecessary purchases.

• Less approval levels made managers more cautious in approval.

• The Business Unit learned more about the processes of Purchasing and Budget through monthly face to face meetings.

• Processes across units were standardized. Previously some units ordered supplies as groups, others let individual staff members get their own supplies.

While outside the scope of the project, some cost savings were projected:

Tables 17: Crime Lab Projected Effect Savings

Consequences

• The ease of spending may lead to more spending and must be monitored closely.

• The need for better/real time internal communication of budget status became more critical than ever.



118

Lessons Learned

As with any project, there were lessons that the Team learned during the LSS project that will be applied to future

LSS projects.

A longer pilot is needed when software development. Much of the pilot time for the Sharepoint system was

spent revising the function of the software.

One-on-one training is required with any new software. The Team conducted classes, but later found

members that attended the class still were not comfortable using the product.

The Team felt that more frequent, structured project briefing meetings with leadership would have

increased satisfaction and adoption.

The In-store concept led to less inventory and ease of order management more than what was expected.

State contracts are not necessarily the lowest prices.

There is additional opportunity to benefit from NASPO contracts.

When regulating store hours, overhead announcements that office supply store was open is necessary.


By changing the types of purchases, streamlining purchase approvals, increasing spending authority, while

increasing accountability, the ease with which the DNA Unit, and the LSPCL, purchases goods and services was

greatly improved. The increase in efficiency affords the lab the ability to delegate these functions primarily to a

Business Unit specialized in conducting this business of the laboratory, leaving the scientific staff to focus on

casework. By automating processes and leveraging technology, the purchasing cycle time was decreased from an

average of 8 weeks to 2 weeks, showing consistency in achieving that cycle time, as well as the process was made

easier to accomplish by the Business Unit staff alone.



119


Advanced Imaging Solutions imaged, indexed and archived 310,625 historical laboratory documents for the DNA

Unit. Remaining consistent with Louisiana Department of Public Safety Services practice already in place, Kofax

was the imaging software utilized in scanning the documents. In addition to being scanned, all records were OCR

processed to allow the “find” feature. Likewise, Content Manager software was used to index the documents into

categories to facilitate rapid recall. The scanned images are stored on the network server and are backed up

nightly. Because they are available on the server, they are readily available to all networked computer workstations

throughout the lab. Quality checks are being performed to randomly verify that the paper documents scanned can

be accessed electronically. So far there have been some discrepancies, which will require rescanning by the

vendor. This is scheduled to take place over the course of the next several months. Meanwhile, LSPCL is working

to develop a retention policy that will afford the DNA Unit the ability to destroy the paper documents, once they are

confident that all scanned documents are accurately imaged, indexed and archived. The scanning of the over 300

thousand documents was performed within approximately 5 weeks. LSPCL provided 3 networked workstations at

the Crime Lab in a conference room which was secured. Daily two to three vendor staff members, who had been

background checked, worked on-site to perform the scanning activities. LSPCL worked closely with the Data

Department to reconcile any imaging issues that arose. Color documents were scanned in color and file labeling

questions were directed to technical staff, to ensure that they would be indexed properly.

Records included in the scanning project included the following:




Validation studies



CODIS sample collection logs and CODIS hit confirmation documents

The binders were removed from the shelving and are being stored in temporary storage areas until quality checks

are completed and destruction can be approved. The space that was relinquished by the over 600 feet of shelving

has created additional DNA work space. These areas are used to review casework and conduct other business of

the DNA Forensic Unit.



120

In addition to contracting a vendor to scan the historical records, a high speed scanner was purchased to facilitate

the staff‟s continued efforts in generating electronic copies of records going forward, using the same imaging and

indexing software. The high speed scanner allows all incoming or newly-created documents to be scanned,

indexed and filed electronically by clerical staff. The clerical staff can then reference and provide the necessary

documents easily, without leaving their workstation and without interrupting analysts performing casework, thereby

decreasing time needed for this administrative task. Training has been conducted for key staff members, with

continued training occurring in groups until all staff members are able to scan, index, and retrieve documents.


LSPCL purchased the Qualtrax software to electronically store and track the Crime Lab‟s procedure manuals using

a previous grant. An auxiliary module, the “Compare Module” was purchased by this grant to further facilitate rapid

comparison between procedural documents. The DNA Technical Leader reviews a minimum of 70 procedures

annually, as well as any time during the year revisions are made. This module affords her the ability to rapidly

compare the previous to revised documents and see what revisions have been made. It is estimated that over 25

hours annually will be saved by using this software. Additionally the analysts can rapidly see what changes were

made in procedures.

LSPCL achieved ASCLD/LAB- International accreditation in April 2011. An administrative decision was made to

postpone the conversion of all procedures into Qualtrax until after the new accreditation process was complete.

Therefore, LSPCL is now in the process of implementing this software. Installation and on-site training had already

been completed, with several DNA staff members receiving training. The next phase will involve the upload of all

accreditation standards, all procedures, and all controlled documents. Completion of the project is expected to take

several more months.


An improvement activity of the DNA Purchasing LSS project was to stand up an on-site store for both office

supplies and lab consumables. For the lab consumable on-site store, LSPCL chose to use available space. A

storage room was set up using wire shelving that would maximize the storage space of the room. This grant funded

the shelving that allowed the DNA lab consumables to be stocked on-site and managed by the vendor. The



121

supplies included in the storeroom were initially specified and determined by DNA staff. The replenishment of

supplies occurs based on predetermined minimum and maximum volumes. DNA Unit staff are no longer involved

with requesting or purchasing lab consumables or office supplies. They are only required to know how to use the

barcode “guns” to scan what supplies were taken from the storeroom. At this time the Forensic Technicians

perform all restocking and are the primary users of the consumable on-site store. The time saved and employee

satisfaction with the concept was incorporated in the measurements taken as part of the DNA Purchasing LSS

project.



122

2.4 CONCLUSIONS

The overall objective of all projects within this grant project never changed: provide tools and operational structure

to increase efficiency in DNA forensic casework and maintain that efficiency.

In review, the funds were used to hire professional services, such as external consultants to conduct validation

projects, conduct Lean Six Sigma (LSS) projects and to train LSPCL staff to conduct future LSS projects to ensure

continued improvements. Funds were also used to purchase additional equipment to increase capacity, reduce

analysis time, offer additional services, validate robotics, and add tools that facilitate a paperless environment.

External professionals were also hired to create electronic dashboards to automate control feedback systems and

make records electronically available to allow analysts to continue scientific analysis with as little interruption as

possible. The dual approach of creating a lean process and culture and focusing the scientists on casework proved

very beneficial for LSPCL. While the improvements may be a custom set of solutions that must be derived by each

laboratory for themselves, the tools and the concepts can be shared and replicated. A readiness for change by the

organization leadership, and a commitment to see the project to completion, are essential. However, if those

elements are present, the process works.

By completing the third (of three) phase of improvements aimed at improving the workflow of the forensic DNA

casework laboratory, the LSPCL has moved from a condition of maintaining to excelling. The LSS projects

changed the culture and the way of doing business at the Crime Lab. The increased use of technology and

restructuring of the administrative functions of the laboratory have led to even more efficiencies and have enabled

the forensic unit to control and improve further the processes put in place. In an economic time that requires all

businesses to do more with less resources, LSPCL has found a mechanism to increase efficiency. The funding that

was received by the NIJ was the cornerstone to a change in culture and expectations at LSPCL. This grant project

was a success and the customers of the LSPCL and the Department of Public Safety Services in Louisiana have

benefited from the outcome through better service, which equates to a safer community.



123

Future Expectations

The improvements in the efficiency of the LSPCL laboratory were truly remarkable. However, now that cultural

change has occurred and much waste eliminated, efficiency improvements are part of every scientist‟s thinking.

There is additional work to be done. Technical review and administrative review could be completed more quickly.

These steps are being included in the workflow schedule. In order to minimize review time and increase quality, a

“corrections” tracking and feedback system is being implemented. Procedural changes are underway to continually

“shave” time from the process steps. Dashboards are being designed for control of processes.

A DNA Module for the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) is desired. Currently, there is no

electronic tracking of samples through the laboratory. Chemistry changes will enable a greater amount of

information to be obtained in the same or less amount of time. Applied Biosystems‟ Identifiler Plus is being

validated and competency testing performed to increase sensitivity and reduce the number of test reactions per

case. Processing in plates instead of tubes is also being implemented in the forensic lab.

Staff retention and low turnover was not within the scope of this project; however, it has been recognized as a key

component to the success of any lean system. LSPCL has begun initiatives in the area of salary studies and

benefit reviews to enhance the ability of the DNA management to retain current, trained analysts.

The focus and mission of the LSPCL has remained steadfast: to provide “Quality, Integrity, Commitment, and

Service” to the agencies and citizens of Louisiana. This grant, this project, the staff and the support of our

administration allowed the LSPCL to achieve the goals set forth in the grant application in making our laboratory

more efficient in performing forensic DNA casework.

Finally, other departments of the LSPCL laboratory have observed what has occurred in the DNA department. All

departments within the LSPCL have begun Lean Six Sigma initiatives, with great results. This has helped transform

other laboratory departments to operate as a lean facility. Through this project and the certification of a Black Belt

LSS Engineer, the Department of Public Safety Services is undertaking a department wide program for the next

twelve months to engage in four additional LSS projects and train a team of Green Belt LSS Engineers to continue

the work in their respective areas.



124

2.5 REFERENCES

1. Nelson, Mark. Making Sense of DNA Backlogs- Myth vs Reality.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice,

2010.

2. “Reported Crime.” Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics website. 29 Mar.2010. January 15, 2011.

http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

3. Hunter, Mark H. “Symposium targets repeat offenders.” The Advocate. 7 Mar.2010. web. 15 Jan.2011.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/86743692.html

4. “Fact Sheet September 30, 2010.” Louisiana Department of Corrections website. LA Department of Corrections Briefing Book. 30 Sep.2010. 13 Jun.2011.

http://www.corrections.state.la.us/wp-content/uploads/stats/2a.pdf

5. “Fact Sheet September 30, 2010.” Louisiana Department of Corrections website. LA Department of Corrections Briefing Book. 30 Sep.2010. 13 Jun.2011.

http://www.corrections.state.la.us/wp-content/uploads/stats/2j.pdf

2.6 DESSIMINATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

The project and findings of this project will be disseminated in the following manner:

1) Presented during the 38th Annual ASCLD, Baltimore, MD

2) Poster presentation at the 21st Annual International Symposium on Human Identification, San Antonio, TX

3) Distributed via email to the other crime laboratories in Louisiana

4) Distributed via email to the ASCLD membership

5) Provided upon request via email.

6) 2011 Louisiana Association of Forensic Scientists Spring Symposium

7) Poster presentation 2011 NIJ Grantees Summit

Additionally, we hope to be invited to present our project at the following upcoming events:

8) 2011 22nd International Symposium on Human Identification


http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/86743692.html

http://www.corrections.state.la.us/wp-content/uploads/stats/2a.pdf

http://www.corrections.state.la.us/wp-content/uploads/stats/2j.pdf

increasing efficiency of forensic dna casework using lean six

Documents